Search (64 results, page 2 of 4)

0.015314223 = product of:
  0.061256893 = sum of:
    0.061256893 = weight(_text_:library in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061256893 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Electronic library. 18(2000) no.2, S.109-113

0.014447878 = product of:
  0.028895756 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.1, S

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=768)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Electronic library. 18(2000) no.5, S.316-327

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=4203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 2255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=2255,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 2255, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2255)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The behavior of academic library users has drastically changed in recent years. Internet search engines have become the preferred tool over the library online public access catalog (OPAC) for finding information. Libraries are losing ground to online search engines. In this paper, two aspects of OPAC use are studied: (1) the current OPAC interface and searching capabilities, and (2) the OPAC bibliographic display. The purpose of the study is to find answers to the following questions: Why is the current OPAC ineffective? What can libraries and librarians do to deliver an OPAC that is as good as search engines to better serve our users? Revitalizing the library OPAC is one of the pressing issues that has to be accomplished.

0.012841367 = product of:
  0.05136547 = sum of:
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=1558,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"MOST INTEGRATED library systems, as they are currently configured and used, should be removed from public view. Before I say why, let me be clean that I think the integrated library system serves a very important, albeit limited, role. An integrated library system should serve as a key piece of the infrastructure of a library, handling such tasks as ma terials acquisition, cataloging (including holdings, of course), and circulation. The integrated library system should be a complete and accurate recording of a local library's holdings. It should not be presented to users as the primary system for locating information. It fails badly at that important job. - Lack of content- The central problem of almost any library catalog system is that it typically includes only information about the books and journals held by a parficular library. Most do not provide access to joumal article indexes, web search engines, or even selective web directories like the Librarians' Index to the Internet. If they do offen such access, it is only via links to these services. The library catalog is far from onestop shopping for information. Although we acknowledge that fact to each other, we still treat it as if it were the best place in the universe to begin a search. Most of us give the catalog a place of great prominente an our web pages. But Information for each book is limited to the author, title, and a few subject headings. Seldom can book reviews, jacket summaries, recommendations, or tables of contents be found-or anything at all to help users determine if they want the material. - Lack of coverage - Most catalogs do not allow patrons to discover even all the books that are available to them. If you're lucky, your catalog may cover the collections of those libraries with which you have close ties-such as a regional network. But that leaves out all those items that could be requested via interlibrary loan. As Steve Coffman pointed out in his "Building Earth's Largest Library" article, we must show our users the universe that is open to them, highlight the items most accessible, and provide an estimate of how long it would take to obtain other items. - Inability to increase coverage - Despite some well-meaning attempts to smash everything of interest into the library catalog, the fact remains that most integrated library systems expect MARC records and MARC records only. This means that whatever we want to put into the catalog must be described using MARC and AACR2 (see "Marc Must Die," LJ 10/15/02, p. 26ff.). This is a barrier to dramatically increasing the scope of a catalog system, even if we decided to do it. How would you, for example, use the Open Archives Initiative Harvesting Protocol to crawl the bibliographic records of remote repositories and make them searchable within your library catalog? It can't be dope, and it shouldn't. The library catalog should be a record of a given library's holdings. Period.
- User Interface hostility - Recently I used the Library catalogs of two public libraries, new products from two major library vendors. A link an one catalog said "Knowledge Portal," whatever that was supposed to mean. Clicking an it brought you to two choices: Z39.50 Bibliographic Sites and the World Wide Web. No public library user will have the faintest clue what Z39.50 is. The other catalog launched a Java applet that before long froze my web browser so badly I was forced to shut the program down. Pick a popular book and pretend you are a library patron. Choose three to five libraries at random from the lib web-cats site (pick catalogs that are not using your system) and attempt to find your book. Try as much as possible to see the system through the eyes of your patrons-a teenager, a retiree, or an older faculty member. You may not always like what you see. Now go back to your own system and try the same thing. - What should the public see? - Our users deserve an information system that helps them find all different kinds of resources-books, articles, web pages, working papers in institutional repositories-and gives them the tools to focus in an what they want. This is not, and should not be, the library catalog. It must communicate with the catalog, but it will also need to interface with other information systems, such as vendor databases and web search engines. What will such a tool look like? We are seeing the beginnings of such a tool in the current offerings of cross-database search tools from a few vendors (see "Cross-Database Search," LJ 10/15/01, p. 29ff). We are in the early stages of developing the kind of robust, userfriendly tool that will be required before we can pull our catalogs from public view. Meanwhile, we can begin by making what we have easier to understand and use."

Source

Library journal. 1xx(2003) no.xx vom 15.2.03, S.28

0.012697884 = product of:
  0.050791536 = sum of:
    0.050791536 = weight(_text_:library in 2665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050791536 = score(doc=2665,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38540247 = fieldWeight in 2665, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2665)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recent projects in subject indexing and classification at K.U.Leuven University Library (Belgium) aim to give new Impulses to knowledge organization within the Institution. While in recent years a lot of attention was given, and with good reason, to the technical and administrative integration of e-sources, less energy was invested in organising the content of traditional and electronic collections. Nevertheless, presenting information sources in a content-structured way remains a core task of our University Library. This paper focuses an some experiments with subject search interfaces at K.U.Leuven University Library and situates them in a new policy for knowledge organization, which tries to find a balance between local and overall needs.

Content

1. One Institution, one catalogue, one solution? K.U.Leuven University Library has a decentralised structure consisting of several department libraries and one central library. It is part of LIBIS-net, which is the biggest network of academic libraries in Belgium. In this network, maintaining the balance between local and overall needs presents a constant challenge. Standards and overall rules in cataloguing are indispensable for permitting information exchange within and outside the network. On the other hand, overall solutions do not necessarily render the best service to the user of a specific library. This is especially the case for subject cataloguing. It is difficult, and perhaps unreasonable, to convince a department library to use a generally accepted thesaurus like LCSH, if the users are familiar with a local classification that is much better adapted to the collection. The DOBIS/LIBIS library system of K.U.Leuven offered a technical solution for the conflict between overall and local needs. The main part of the bibliographic description was stored an the overall level and was visible for the whole network. For subject cataloguing this was the case for UDC, LCSH and McSH. A UDC authority file was built containing UDC codes linked to descriptors in different languages (Dutch, English and French). The authority file was linked to the UDC codes used in the bibliographic descriptions. This permitted searching by either UDC codes or verbal terms. LCSH were regularly and automatically uploaded in the catalogue to enrich the bibliographic descriptions. Finally, our Library of Biomedical Sciences used McSH. Local information, like thesauri and classifications exclusively used in a specific library, were stored in local files ("local keywords") and could only be seen by that library (up to branch level). For many years, this local information posed no difficulties. 27.04% of all documents and 38.16% of those younger than 1992 have local keywords

0.012661759 = product of:
  0.050647035 = sum of:
    0.050647035 = weight(_text_:library in 2549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050647035 = score(doc=2549,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.384306 = fieldWeight in 2549, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims at providing a robust, user-friendly and efficient navigation procedure in an online library catalog that is based on semantic information encapsulated within subject headings. Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes an interactive navigation procedure inside an online library catalog based on semantic information. The proposed approach is presented through a web-based, prototype application following the most recent trends of the semantic web such as AJAX technology and the web ontology language - OWL for encoding semantics. Findings - According to the proposed method, a GUI interface exposes the hierarchy of the subject headings employed within an OPAC, as well as all stated relations between such headings, as links that the user can follow, effectively traversing the ontology and formulating at the same time the actual query to the underlying OPAC. This act of interactive navigation through the library's assets aids searchers in accurately formulating their queries, by offering broader or narrower concepts for selection or indicating alternative or related concepts they might be initially unaware of. The augmented exposition of inter-relations between concepts provides multiple paths for information retrieval and enables searchers to fulfill their information needs in a faster, more efficient and intuitive manner. Practical implications - The paper includes implications for the development of modern, semantic web applications focused on the library domain. The novel approach of visualizing subject headings could be further extended to visualize a number of other conceptualizations of the library domain. Originality/value - This paper fulfils an identified need to take advantage of the "hidden knowledge" existing within the library domain but, for a number of reasons, is never exposed to the library users.

Source

Library hi tech. 26(2008) no.1, S.19-23

0.012661759 = product of:
  0.050647035 = sum of:
    0.050647035 = weight(_text_:library in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050647035 = score(doc=2598,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.384306 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the information needs of one user group, public library fiction readers, in order to reveal a design of an online community at the local level. Examination of user-generated metadata can reveal new approaches to information architecture. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review into behaviors of virtual communities; surveying public library readers regarding search behavior characteristics - the survey included a sample "tagging" exercise to determine whether public library communities could create meaningful metadata for retrieval purposes. Findings - The use of relevance as an indicator of tag quality is flawed: in a survey, public library readers "tagged" the novel The Da Vinci Code. The resulting collection of tags provided a richer description of the book than did the social book-related web site www.librarything.com. Tag collections can be broken down into different categories, each reflecting a different "facet" of the novel: character, plot, subject/topic, setting, and genre. Faceted structure to tags enables users to choose the context of the tag to the novel. Research limitations/implications - This research is relevant in the world of social networking sites, online communities, or any other such system where users generate descriptive metadata. Examination of such metadata can reveal facets, which can guide the architect/librarian in the design of a versatile architecture. Originality/value - This research resulted in a manifold design for a public-library-based online community that allowed for the full expression of users' information needs. This research introduces a faceted structure to current approaches for user-generated metadata, adding versatility to search terms.

Source

Library hi tech. 25(2007) no.4, S.579-594

0.011722512 = product of:
  0.046890046 = sum of:
    0.046890046 = weight(_text_:library in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046890046 = score(doc=2588,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.35579824 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to describe a proof of concept web application designed to allow users to search for library materials with geographic subject headings using Google Maps as the primary interface for navigation. The purpose of the paper is to describe the development of an innovative tool that one library has created to provide users with a new way to access bibliographic records. Design/methodology/approach - The approach taken is descriptive, with the development process for the proof of concept laid out in detail and placed it within the broader contexts of web application development at the host library and the emergence of Web 2.0 tools. Findings - The paper shows that unique and valuable new methods of accessing bibliographic data can be created through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs), one of the more powerful tools available to web application developers today. Research limitations/implications - Challenges of working with geographic information in subject headings of bibliographic records are discussed, and potential methods for dealing with these challenges are described. Originality/value - The paper shows that it is possible to use APIs provided by large internet entities such as Google to create map based navigational tools for accessing bibliographic information. It also shows the value of allowing library systems staff to explore new technologies.

Source

Library hi tech. 26(2008) no.1, S.33-40

0.011722512 = product of:
  0.046890046 = sum of:
    0.046890046 = weight(_text_:library in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046890046 = score(doc=2843,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.35579824 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=2993,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 6857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=6857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 6857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6857)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium held in Washington, DC at the Library of Congress, November 2000

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this lecture, Dr. Bates summarizes the research she recently conducted in her role as a Principal Investigator for the Library of Congress Action Plan on Bibliographic Control of Web Resources. Her investigations focused on three particular topics: User access vocabulary, Links among bibliographic families, and Staging of access to resources in the interface. From each of these perspectives, she shares her recommendations on how to achieve enhanced access to and display of records for selected Web resources across multiple systems.

0.010701139 = product of:
  0.042804558 = sum of:
    0.042804558 = weight(_text_:library in 2594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042804558 = score(doc=2594,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32479787 = fieldWeight in 2594, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2594)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a faceted OPAC interface offers improvements to information discovery in scholarly research. Design/methodology/approach - The 5.2 million records of an entire library catalog were loaded into a faceted navigation interface and an attractive search term suggestion tool. Humanities PhD students at the dissertation level and familiar with this collection were observed while using this interface to continue their research into the literature on their dissertation topic. Findings - From a group of 12 subjects, nine reported finding materials that they had not found in their previous use of the traditional catalog interface. Research limitations/implications - No attempt is made to isolate the effects of relevance ranking on discovery from those of faceted navigation or the search term suggestions. The differences between the circumstances of scholars who did and did not find previously undiscovered materials are not examined. Practical implications - Faceted interface and search term suggestion in a library catalog may enable those scholars who are highly dependent on library materials to find materials that would remain hidden in a traditional library catalog. Originality/value - This article considers whether faceted navigation increases the range of relevant materials that scholars discover, and is of interest to libraries which are considering adding faceted navigation and other features to their catalog interface.

Source

Library hi tech. 25(2007) no.4, S.550-561

0.009946881 = product of:
  0.039787523 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 4894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=4894,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 4894, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4894)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In June 1998 Oakland University's library migrated to a new online catalog. In order to determine user acceptance of the new OPAC, students receiving library instruction were asked to complete an open-ended questionnaire eliciting comments on their likes, dislikes and online catalog preference. From the data collected, a second questionnaire was designed and distributed that focused on specific features of the new catalog identified in the first survey. Results indicated that users overwhelmingly preferred the new OPAC and found it easy to use; however, they experienced some difficulty using special features like truncation. The most popular feature of the new catalog was its remote access capability. Second-generation OPACs possess features - such as electronic reserves capabilities and hypertext links - that are beginning to simplify the search process; but they have not yet developed into the intuitive, comprehensive systems that can empower users to seek information in new ways.

Source

Library hi tech. 18(2000) no.2, S.130-141

0.00957139 = product of:
  0.03828556 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 1762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=1762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 1762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1762)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annals of Japan Society of Library Science. 46(2000) no.2, S.49-72

0.00957139 = product of:
  0.03828556 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=5584,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=2198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 2198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2198)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the last couple of years, there has been a surge of activity in the library automation arena directed toward improved user interfaces. As Breeding looks at the events and activities that have transpired over the last year or so, Breeding sees an incredible amount of progress in creating interfaces that help librarians compete better in an ever more crowded landscape of information providers. It's strategically important for libraries to have technologies in place that will optimize delivery of content and services in the context of today's Web. Breeding believes that failure to make progress in this area can foster a creep of irrelevancy as potential users increasingly rely on information resources provided by entities other than libraries.