Search (66 results, page 1 of 4)

0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a dramatic shift from subject to periodical title searching at Colorado University Libraries. States possible reasons for the change, examines problems encountered by users with searching the periodical title index and suggests how this change in online catalogue searching may affect future catalogue design and bibliographic instruction

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.048132036 = product of:
  0.09626407 = sum of:
    0.09626407 = sum of:
      0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053210527 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043053545 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71

0.030406015 = product of:
  0.06081203 = sum of:
    0.06081203 = product of:
      0.12162406 = sum of:
        0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12162406 = score(doc=5260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=8702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 8702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 23(1994) no.3, S.43-46

0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=2874,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of the use of metaphors as problem solving mechanisms by novice searchers of bibliographic databases. Metaphors provide a framework or 'familiar structure' of credible associations within which relationships in other domains may be considered. 28 students taking an undergraduate course in information retrieval at Sydney University of Technology, were recorded as they 'talked through' a search on a bibliographic retrieval system. The transcripts were analyzed using conventional methods and the NUDIST software package for qualitative research. A range of metaphors was apparent from the language use by students in the search process. Those which predominated were: a journey; human interaction; a building or matching process; a problem solving process, and a search for a quantity. Many of the studentes experiencing the interaction as a problem solving process or a search for quantity perceived the outcomes as successful. Concludes that when memory for operating methods and procedures is incomplete an unconscious approach through the use of a conceptual system which is consonant with the task at hand may also lead to success in bibliographic searching

0.021526773 = product of:
  0.043053545 = sum of:
    0.043053545 = product of:
      0.08610709 = sum of:
        0.08610709 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08610709 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.021526773 = product of:
  0.043053545 = sum of:
    0.043053545 = product of:
      0.08610709 = sum of:
        0.08610709 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08610709 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.021246849 = product of:
  0.042493697 = sum of:
    0.042493697 = product of:
      0.084987395 = sum of:
        0.084987395 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084987395 = score(doc=4146,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.480894 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to provide some insight into mental models of the bibliographic universe and how they compare with functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) as a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. Design/methodology/approach - To get a more complete picture of the mental models, different elicitation techniques were used. The three tasks of the paper were: card-sorting, concept mapping and comparison task. The paper deals with comparison task, which consisted of interviews and rankings, and provides a discussion of the results of the paper as a whole. Findings - Results of the ranking part of the comparison task confirm the findings of concept mapping task. In both cases, while there are individual differences between mental models, on average they gravitate towards FRBR. Research limitations/implications - This is a small study and it provides only a glimpse of the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual basis for cataloguing. More FRBR-related user studies are needed, including similar studies on different groups of individuals and different types of materials, as well as practical studies of user needs and user interfaces. Practical implications - The results of this study are the first user-tested indication of the validity of FRBR as a conceptual basis for the future of cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first published paper of mental models of the bibliographic universe and uses a unique combination of mental model elicitation techniques.

0.021246849 = product of:
  0.042493697 = sum of:
    0.042493697 = product of:
      0.084987395 = sum of:
        0.084987395 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084987395 = score(doc=395,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.480894 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to build on of a previous study of mental models of the bibliographic universe, which found that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model is intuitive. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 120 participants were presented with a list of bibliographic entities and six graphs each. They were asked to choose the graph they thought best represented the relationships between entities described. Findings - The graph based on the FRBR model was chosen by more than half of the participants and none of the alternatives stood out. This gives further indication that FRBR is an appropriate model of the bibliographic universe from users' standpoint. Research limitations/implications - The study only looked at the textual part of the bibliographic universe. Further research is needed for other types of materials. Practical implications - This research suggests that there should be a more positive attitude towards implementation of FRBR-based catalogues. Originality/value - This is one of only a handful of user studies relating to FRBR, which looks to be the backbone of catalogues for years to come. As such, the results should be of interest to everybody involved with catalogues, from cataloguers to the end-users.

0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=637,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reprots the findings of an experiment employing a simulated scholarly use of an OPAC to determine the frequency of one-screen displays when a scholar searches for a known-item with so-called 'keywords' in an implied boolean system. The experiment revealed that a 'keyword' search formula comprising surname plus first and last title words produced a single screen 92.8% of the time, thereby reducing the failure of traditional title searching to produce single screens by nearly one half; such a formula also enables a scholar to search successfully with abbreviated, unsearchable bibliographic citations. Additional research should be carried out, for if it is further demonstrated that replacing traditional bibliographic catalog entries with transcribed title pages provides an improved known-item OPAC, users would benefit and libraries would enjoy huge savings

0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=4168,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 4168, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Online bibliographic searching

Subject

Online bibliographic searching

0.01845152 = product of:
  0.03690304 = sum of:
    0.03690304 = product of:
      0.07380608 = sum of:
        0.07380608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07380608 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.016997479 = product of:
  0.033994958 = sum of:
    0.033994958 = product of:
      0.067989916 = sum of:
        0.067989916 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067989916 = score(doc=2659,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3847152 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper presents findings based on user feedback and opinion of online public access catalogues as tools for finding, identifying, and selecting bibliographic materials in a public library setting. Participants spoke their thoughts aloud while conducting known-item searches. The findings describe an iterative process of action, observation, identification, and emotion.

Content

1. Introduction Significant research in the design and use of online public access catalogues (OPACs) has been conducted by professionals in library and information science (Borgman, 1996; Carlyle, 2001, Carlyle & Timmons, 2002; Hancock, 1987). However, only limited research has addressed actual library user interaction with and perceptions of online catalogue displays and bibliographic elements (Abrera, 1986; Luk, 1996; Markey, 1983). Retrieval systems, specifically online library catalogues, should consider user perceptions and expectations as an important aspect of design and implementation for improved catalogue efficiency (Hert, 1996). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the online catalogue from a user perspective to determine if it is currently succeeding in meeting the bibliographic needs of users in terms of description, display, navigation, and to provide principles for design of future OPACs. A study seeking to understand better how public library users interact with general OPAC displays and the more specific displays of bibliographic information was conducted in 2003. Research questions focused an 1) user perceptions of the OPAC, 2) the elements in a bibliographic display standing out as most important in selection and identification, and 3) user feedback an the process of using the OPAC. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the larger study findings having implications for future research and online catalogue design.

0.016457738 = product of:
  0.032915477 = sum of:
    0.032915477 = product of:
      0.06583095 = sum of:
        0.06583095 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06583095 = score(doc=4145,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to present the results of the first two tasks of a user study looking into mental models of the bibliographic universe and especially their comparison to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model, which has not yet been user tested. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employes a combination of techniques for eliciting mental models and consisted of three tasks, two of which, card sorting and concept mapping, are presented herein. Its participants were 30 individuals residing in the general area of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Findings - Cumulative results of concept mapping show a strong resemblance to FRBR. Card sorts did not produce conclusive results. In both tasks, participants paid special attention to the original expression, indicating that a special place for it should be considered. Research limitations/implications - The study was performed using a relatively small sample of participants living in a geographically limited space using relatively straight-forward examples. Practical implications - Some solid evidence is provided for adoption of FRBR as the conceptual basis for cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first widely published user study of FRBR, applying novel methodological approaches in the field of Library and Information Science.

0.0152030075 = product of:
  0.030406015 = sum of:
    0.030406015 = product of:
      0.06081203 = sum of:
        0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06081203 = score(doc=522,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 522, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research on the use of online catalogs has challenged many assumptions about the behavior of library users. It has demonstrated that many of the patterns of behavior observed in the use of card catalogs were adaptions to the card technology; often behavioral patterns are different in an online environment. These studies have indicated that patrons prefer online catalogs and use them more, but they also show inadequacies in bibliographic practice, especially in the area of subject access.

0.0152030075 = product of:
  0.030406015 = sum of:
    0.030406015 = product of:
      0.06081203 = sum of:
        0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06081203 = score(doc=831,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As librarians evaluate the capabilities of online catalogs they will need to consider what information users expect to find in the catalog and what characteristics of the catalog will help users in their search for this information. The findings of studies concerning how library users actually use card catalogs and online catalogs, and their successes and failures in that use, can be used to determine the capabilities that are needed in anonline catalog to satisfy the bibliographic requests of library users

0.0152030075 = product of:
  0.030406015 = sum of:
    0.030406015 = product of:
      0.06081203 = sum of:
        0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06081203 = score(doc=8583,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 8583, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=5691,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5691, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The second half of a 'before and after' study to evaluate the impact of an online catalogue on subject searching behaviour is reported. A holistic approach is adopted encompassing both catalogue use and browsing at the shelves for catalogue users and non-users. Verbal and non-verbal data were elicited from searchers using a combined methodology including talk-aloud technique, observation and a screen logging facility. An extensive qualitative analysis was carried out correlating expressed topics, search formulation strategies and documents retrieved at the shelves. The online catalogue environment does not appear to have increased the extent of subject searching nor the use of the bibliographic tool. The manual PRECIS index supported a contextual approach for broad and more interactive search formulations whereas the OPAC encouraged a matching approach and narrow formulations with fewer but user generated formulations. The success rate of the online catalogue was slightly better than that of the manual tools but fewer items were retrieved at the shelves. Non-users of the bibliographic tools seemed to be just as successful. To improve retrieval effectiveness it is suggested that online catalogues should cater for both matching and contextual approaches to searching. Recent research indicates that a more interactive process could be promoted by providing query expansion through a combination of searching aids for matching, for search formulation assistance and for structured contextual retrieval

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports progress and future plans for a project to study the interactions of users with information retrieval interfaces. Tests are run with professional data base searchers and with end users who are members of a profession but have little or no searching experience. Interfaces tested include a command language search system used to search DIALOG bibliographic data bases, a non-procedural system that produces DIALOG commands, and several full text systems, including one using hypertext. The intent is to determine which kinds of users perform best with each type of interface. The project is being conducted jointly bay the University of Toronto and the University of Maryland

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=8103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 8103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

At the start of the academic year reference staff are hard pressed to provide sufficient assistance to first time users of CD-ROMs, who have missed bibliographic instruction classes, or who need more guidance before searching. The literature on CD-ROMs was reviewed, and a survey conducted to estimate the training needs of searchers. It was found that 100% of the inexperienced searchers required assistance while searching, and 50% of their search strategies were later rated as poor. More than half the experienced searchers also needed the librarians assistance, and 31% of this group demonstrated a poor understanding of searching techniques. The survey findings were incorporated into CDIntro, a computer assisted learning package designed by the authors