Luminaries of librarianship have reinforced the concept of convenience. Cutter was an early advocate of the model when he urged the “convenience of the reader”; and Ranganathan identified it in his Fourth Law: “Save the time of the reader.”13
The Principle of Least Effort, formulated by George Zipf in Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, has been applied to information-seeking behavior.14 As described by Thomas Mann, the principle states that:
Most researchers, (even “serious” scholars) will tend to choose easily available information sources, even when they are objectively of low quality, and further, will tend to be satisfied with whatever can be found easily in preference to pursuing higher-quality sources whose use would require a greater expenditure of effort.15
Mann backs up this assertion with numerous studies and articles that state the end user will almost always choose ease of use over quality of information, and that this principle extends to users regardless of academic status. Mann then points out the irony of librarians and information professionals ignoring the Principle of Least Effort by blaming these problems on the end users rather than on the design of the library systems.16
People seek convenience and will use the tools that provide it. Librarians have discovered that one such tool is IM.
IM as an Additional Access Point
Many factors, including reliability, ease of use, convenience, and prevalence, combine to make IM an attractive option for VR service. There are some drawbacks to IM, including somewhat cumbersome archiving procedures, difficulty serving simultaneous users (this is subject to debate; some librarians find it easier to serve multiple users using IM), lack of scripted messages, lack of a survey feature, and inability to share the user’s screen (no co-browsing). It should be pointed out, however, that archiving, simultaneous users, scripted messages, and surveys are librarian issues, not user concerns. But one major advantage is that IM almost always works without any hitches. When you IM someone, you are generally able to connect and transmit messages without any problems. No elaborate instructions to follow, nothing to turn off or disable. You can use any browser on any computer.
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 [...]