Some librarians have made the point that VR software is new and that we’re trying to adapt a technology designed for corporate communications to a different use, so we should expect some growing pains when pioneering new territory. This is a valid point, but it also is true that while some librarians may be willing to tolerate considerable frustration, at least in the short term, most users are not. They just won’t come back.
In an effort to adapt to the environment, three major vendors–Tutor.com, Questionpoint, and Docutek–provide the ability to bring users down to a basic (non co-browse) mode.11 Operating in basic mode makes it possible for patrons and librarians to interact, even if the user has security features installed or is using an incompatible browser, but the ability to co-browse is lost, making it little more than a fancy, and unfamiliar, version of IM.
All the variables described previously can add up to making full-featured services such as QuestionPoint, Docutek and Tutor.com burdensome propositions. When everything works together according to design, these can be useful tools for helping users navigate the Web and the intricacies of databases. But as we can see from the long list of issues just discussed, there are many factors that are beyond the control of the library or the user that are potentially working to torpedo the VR transaction. Perhaps Janes is onto something with the notion that IM is preferable to the fancier options.
The Goal of Convenience
All of this brings us to convenience. Anne Lipow, a respected library consultant, made the point that convenience trumps everything else. She stated:
As human animals, people will go first to the most likely source that is convenient. Convenience is what governs the choice of where to go. As human animals, we are all happy to accept “good enough” that’s handy over best, or even better, that we have to work to get to.12
If you give a user the choice between a good enough answer right now and an excellent answer in several hours or tomorrow, good enough right now wins almost every time.
While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the technical aspects of providing a virtual reference service (and I’m really looking forward to those improvements and innovations), it continues to concern me that much of our blame for a perceived low use of these services focuses primarily on the software. How can we definitively state that because an “…abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messaging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm”? I don’t understand that logic. It’s like saying billions of humans use phones, but it just isn’t translating to the library realm because our phones aren’t ringing off the hooks. What is our benchmark for sufficient usage? And how are you making the service know to your users?
Here at AskColorado we struggle to keep up with demand. We do very little marketing. Use is generated from link placement at participating library websites, library catalogs and databases, and word of mouth. Our primary users (more that 60%) are the same demographic cited as being avid IM users in the article; teenagers.
My main concern is that libraries first need to set benchmarks for sufficient use of any reference service (in-person, phone, e-mail, IM, VR) then assess usage. If you’re not happy with usage you need to look at how you are making your service available. Can users find the VR service on your website? No? Then you need to make it more visible (‘Goal of Convienence’.) Try this experiment: Add Live Help links throughout your library’s website and in your library catalog. Assess usage of the service. If your numbers still do not meet your goals then perhaps you need to assess whether it is the technology preventing usage of your service.
I know it’s not as simple as I’ve explained above. My main point is to caution librarians not to discount a service based on technology alone, without looking at other factors that may impact usage of that service.
[...] A propos des défis techniques des services de références virtuels Looking to Connect: Technical Challenges that Impede the Growth of Virtual Reference [...]