Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Contents | 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
Executive Summary
"The Gateway is the best [information system] Iíve ever used, but it is less than optimal. It is a great mock-up of the future." (focus group participant)
This report summarizes the results of a focus group user study that was conducted in November 1998 to assess how the Library Gateway is being used; to ascertain the Gateway usersí satisfaction levels, likes and dislikes; to determine enhancements for the current Gateway; and to identify future improvements for CULís common entryway. To place the research into the context of what is happening at other peer institutions, it also contains a summary and brief evaluation of the Web sites of a dozen large academic libraries.
A tool for collecting in-depth, thoughtful feedback, focus groups represent a qualitative rather than a quantitative research methodology. Focus group interviewing was a natural choice for this study as it is well suited to studying needs, perceptions, satisfaction, and user expectations. This method overcomes the limitations of pre-determined, closed-ended questions used for surveys and often yields insightful, in depth results. Our study used six focus groups to gather user feedback and suggestionsótwo each of faculty/graduate students, two each of undergraduate students, and two each of library staff members.
While our results are not statistically representative (they may or may not reflect the attitudes of all users), they do suggest that:
- Users want CUL to better communicate with them about both the existence of the Gateway and enhancements to the system and collection.
- Undergraduates use the Gateway when they do papers; faculty and graduate students use it more frequently, and they prefer access from their offices.
- The primary use of the Gateway is networked resources.
- Patrons rarely consult Gateway Help. When they do, they find it is not helpful, or they get lost.
- Users have much praise for CUL and its librarians.
- Full text is extremely popular.
- Undergraduates use both keyword searching and Gateway subject captions to retrieve Gateway resources. Faculty and graduate students are more likely to do known item searching and to use only a handful of databases in their specialties.
- Most patrons are satisfied with the Gateway. They like having a common entryway, full text, easy remote access, the variety of databases, online services, the ability to save time, and the excellent support they get from librarians
- The least popular aspects of the Gateway are confusing keyword searching, multiple interfaces, not understanding how to use the Gateway, and lack of integration with the OPAC (especially for holdings information).
- The Gateway can be overwhelming. Many find the process of selecting a database confusing. Users want more shortcuts, more direct access to the databases they consult frequently, and more prominence given to the catalog (and they want the catalog on the Web).
The following overarching themes emerged throughout most sessions:
1) Overall, users are very satisfied with both CUL and the Gateway. They are highly appreciative of the rich collections and outstanding services that they feel they receive.
2) Many of the difficulties that users have with the Gateway stem from the fact that the Gateway presents networked resources and services but it does nothing to simplify the complexity of todayís information scene. Web users expect simplicity and are baffled when they realize that they need library and research skills to translate between their information needs and the genre, subject and database choices they have to make on the Gateway.
3) Users appreciate the richness that the Gateway offers for all subjects, but they yearn to have a more personal space. If they cannot "rearrange the furniture" in the entire system, at least they would like a little corner to themselves where they can dictate how important certain resources are based on their own needs. The idea of a personalized "Greatest Hits" and subject-specific "Whatís new" came up in several focus groups.
4) Users want to be in closer communication with the library. They feel that the library provides great services for those who happen to find out about them and teach themselves how to use them. They would like us to be more proactive about letting them know about collections and services and teaching them how to use them.
Based on our findings we recommend that CUL take the following steps to enhance its common entryway:
- Enhance user awareness and training.
- Continue to add resources, especially full-text and e-journals.
- Improve keyword searching.
- Expand the ways of "slicing and dicing" the collection of networked resources such as allowing an easy way to identify e-journals as a subset or resources.
- Explore new ways and technologies to simplify the task of navigating a complex information scene.
- Provide more prominence to and integration with the OPAC.
- Make the search results display more concisely, clearly, and ranked, especially for databases with multiple interfaces.
- Provide personalized and current awareness services.
- Add new features to the Gateway such as whatís new, hot topics, favorite databases, and subject guides.
- Continue to allow for both searching and browsing for networked resources (i.e., keyword/title search and subject-based browse.)
- Continue to provide both Web and telnet access to databases (especially the OPAC.)
- Continue to add new services such as multimedia tutorial, "chat" help and reference, fee-based e-mail document delivery.
- Provide a common search engine and simultaneous searching of multiple databases.
- Continue to make Networked Resources highly visible as a separate category even after integration with the LMS. (see the University of Michigan model)
- Involve users with testing and designing "help" and other aspects of the system.
- Provide prominent links to Web search engines.
- Conduct a study of non-users.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Contents| Next section
rev. 1/27/99 peo