Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to PSPC Index
10 November 1997
RWA Notes
Most of this meeting was devoted to a discussion of the planning of the Library Gateway.
1. Gateway Status. Ed said that work on the Library Gateway is on schedule and proceeding well-thanks especially to the work of the two implementation groups chaired by Zsuzsa Koltay and Karen Calhoun, and to the work of Mann ITS, including especially the support being provided by Tom Gale. We are close now to making final decisions in a number of areas, including Bear Access buttons, and the subject captions and genre terms. The LG Steering Committee would meet immediately after PSPC, to evaluate input received, and then final recommendations will be made to the University Library Management Team tomorrow (Tuesday).
2. Design. Zsuzsa gave a brief demonstration of the current state of the LG prototype. She talked about how the screen provides access to both the equivalent of the stacks (network resources on the right) and services (the buttons on the left). She also said the Design Committee is working on a response to each of the points raised at the IRPC meeting, which will be posted to IRPC-L.
3. Subject Captions. Karen then explained that we are working increasingly toward consensus on the subject captions, after discussions with IRPC, TSEG, CDExec-and a considerable amount of informal response. The main difficulty of the initial lists of subject captions (proposals 1 and 2) were that they provided more of a distribution list of resource holdings than an even presentation of all disciplines; also there was much concern about the potentially confusing distinction between "general interest" and "general reference;" also, there was difficulty deciding how to cross-post certain subjects among the ca. fifteen captions. By expanding the list to ca. 30 captions (proposal 3), these problems are resolved. Most members of TSEG and CDExec seemed to prefer the expanded list.
Michael Engle asked about the genre terms: how will catalogs be accommodated? Karen confirmed that the term "catalogs" has been added to the genre list. Tony wondered how we will refer to databases containing several genres. Karen agreed this is a problem, because we can select only one genre heading at this time; however, there are plans to consider enhancements in the spring, and this would presumably be one of them.
Lenore asked about how we will put this new Gateway into production, once it is implemented in January. Have we considered procedures for maintaining it? Ed said the LG Steering Committee has been totally focused to date on implementation--but once the implementation decisions are made this month, the Committee will begin to work on putting the system into production. A number of key processes that will be needed have already been identified.
Suzy said she thought we should aim for as much stability in the subject list as possible. Constantly changing it over the years is problematic. Nancy urged that multiple listing of general indexes under different captions be considered. Even if we end up putting Periodical Abstracts under all thirty captions, this will serve to draw users' attention to more general indexes they may not have thought about. Karen responded that we should bear in mind that the subject captions are for browsing; users can also search by key word-and the summary fields written for each database list the various disciplines covered by that database. Susan Markowitz agreed about the need for including general indexes under subject captions: in some cases, a general index (e.g., SCI) is the primary index for the discipline. Karen said this issue would be reviewed. Paul cautioned that, although some of the Mann studies revealed certain user behavior (e.g., a preference for searching over browsing), that same behavior may not be indicative of users in other disciplines.
4. More on Proposal 3. Zsuzsa next explained some of the options developed by the Design Committee to make the screen hold 30 captions, rather than 15. The Committee is making every effort to ensure that whatever is developed will also work for users with low-end browsers or with lower resolution monitors. One option is to list all captions in alphabetical order. This will require some scrolling, especially on screens with lower resolution. The Design Committee found it preferable, however, to divide all of the captions into four broad categories: arts and humanities, social sciences, sciences, and general. The appropriate captions are then listed in horizontal displays under each category. Alternatively, we could just list the four categories without the captions, and then link each category to the appropriate list of captions on a second screen-but this creates another level. (It was clear that few-if any-staff at the meeting favored this approach.) Susan Markowitz suggested that, if we go with the categories followed by the captions, that we delete the double captions; e.g., we should list "business" and "economics" separately (rather than "business and economics"), even if they link to the same databases.
Michael said he found the horizontal listings under the categories much more difficult to read than the alphabetical list. Jill agreed (and CDExec, as I recall, had a similar reaction). Michael recommended that, if we do end up going with categories, we should consider putting "general" at the top rather than the bottom. Tom Hickerson thought it might be possible through programming to make the captions under the category headings more distinguishable.
Lenore suggested that we consider doing both: that we simply list the four categories at the top, each of which would connect with the appropriate list of headings on a second screen, and that underneath we list all of the captions alphabetically. I noticed a good deal of nodding around the room in response to this. Joel agreed that there is nothing wrong with providing different approaches for the user to select; and Tony thought that we might down the line want to consider a default screen-but then also offer users different options instead, which they could then bookmark.
Lenore asked that the word "document" be removed from the explanation box describing the catalog; instead we should include something like "audiovisual materials." The current explanation of the catalog, she said, is far too paper-oriented. Suzy agreed: the word "documents" will mean little to most users anyway.
5. Bear Access. Ed explained that the Library needs to make a decision this week on the Bear Access menu that will be on top of the Library Gateway. The recommendation of the LG Steering Committee was summarized in Ed's 6 November memo (subject: Status report on the Library Gateway) to CU-LIB. The Steering Committee is recommending that the Library Gateway be phased in during the spring semester, i.e., that both the new LG and the current Bear Access approach remain accessible--but that the current approach be eliminated at the end of the spring semester. Accordingly, the Committee is recommending that there be three buttons on the Bear Access page: Library Gateway (Web), CU Catalog Plus, Library Resources and Services (classic).
Everyone seemed to feel that the term "classic" is inappropriate. Brendan Wyly said the term appears often to be used now in advertising to indicate that a recent experiment was unsuccessful, and that one should revert to the previous product. Obviously that is the last thing we want to imply. Jill suggested that we use "Bear Access" rather than "classic;" Lydia felt that would be confusing, since one would already be in Bear Access. Nancy thought we should just settle on some version of "old" and "new."
Lenore emphasized that many CUL libraries still have LC2s, and will therefore not be able to provide access to the "new" versions anyway. If we say there is a new version, and then ask users to make do with the old version, that will send some wrong messages-so we should look for other terms than "old" and "new." In response to this, Tom Hickerson noted that we will be upgrading the RAM of many of the public Power Macs. He also said that I have been asked to put together a task force to advise ET on the replacement of the LC2s: what platforms should we select, and in what sequence should the LC2s throughout the system be replaced? (I will be sending a note about this to CU-LIB in the next few days.)
Kathy Chiang wondered whom we are serving by keeping the old system for another semester. Ed responded that the Committee has felt that we would be serving users who have been trained in using the old system-and that the Committee is of the opinion that we do not want to force users to face a totally new system upon their return in the spring. Lenore thought we should consider not retaining the old version, and simply start off in the spring with the LG. Karen noted that, in addition to helping users become accustomed to the new version, we also want to maintain the old version in the (admittedly extremely remote) event that something happens, after all of our work, to prevent the LG from coming up on 5 January.
Brendan asked about Just the Facts. There is a clear need for this service, and it is not accessible through the Web; it cannot therefore be made available through the LG. Lydia noted that, for security reasons, it is unlikely that Just the Facts will ever be Web-accessible. Ed responded that, for the spring semester at least, Just the Facts will remain accessible through the "classic" version. We will still need to consider how to continue to make it available when the "classic" version disappears. He reminded us that the next decisions on Bear Access will need to be made in February.
Lance was concerned about the aesthetics of having only three buttons on Bear Access. Some work may need to be invested in making the screen look better. Mary Ochs wondered whether the kiosks would not be simply set on the LG, rather than on the three-button Bear Access. Ed responded that there is an assumption that many users will want to go directly to the CUL catalog, so it is preferable that we have the three buttons on top. Tim also noted that, if one connects to the CUL catalog through the LG, one must currently go through an intermediate machine, which could become something of a bottle neck in the event of heavy use. Work is now being done to eliminate that route-but the link from Bear Access to the catalog does not entail such an intermediate step.
In general, there seemed to be no significant objections to the three Bear Access buttons-although there was a strong sense that some alternative to the term "classic" needs to be found.
6. Thanksgiving. There will be a meeting on Wednesday, 12 November, 9:00-10:00, in Olin 703, to pool information on work-arounds for the Thanksgiving weekend, when the mainframe will be unavailable.
7. Access Steering. I reported that I had met with Susan Currie, Howard Raskin, Carmen Blankenship, and Deb Lamb-Deans about the main issues currently facing access services. I asked them to continue to serve as an Access Services Steering Committee, which would set the agenda for the Access Services Program Committee, and would recommend issues that need to come to PSPC.
8. Ad Hoc Executive Committee. I explained that I would like to put in place a small, ad hoc Public Services Executive Committee--as a place from which to begin working on public services policy and decision-making. This group would consider organizational issues (beginning with itself--is this the right kind of group?)--and would at the same time examine some of the general public services policy issues that are beginning to accumulate. It would also serve as a kind of steering committee for PSPC. It would start out very small--just a few key managers, including representatives from IRPC and ASPC. I would not, in any case, expect this group to last long in its current form, but rather to evolve. I also emphasized that functional integration or coalescence remains a very high priority: it is essential that we move deliberately toward much better connections, for example, between reference, collection development and original cataloging. I heard no objections to trying out such an ad hoc executive group, so I will move forward on that.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to PSPC Index
rev. 12/24/97 dih