Next Generation Catalogs: What Do They Do and Why Should We Care?

Characteristics of Nextgen Catalogs

Nextgen catalogs are more useful as discovery tools than a mechanism to search for something specific. They are arranged to conduct broad keyword searches without limiting until after the results are displayed. There also is less of an emphasis placed upon locating a specific item and more emphasis on discovery using a broad search that is then refined until the user finds an item that suits their information need. Nextgen catalogs, in some respects, are about the search experience rather than locating a specific item.

The first major difference that a nextgen catalog has from the traditional catalog is the interface. It is usually much simpler and displays the catalog data in a format that is easier on the eyes. The color palette usually has subdued, Web 2.0 feel with shading and a lot of graphics. Many catalogs use icons to indicate item aspects of format, search ranking results, and circulation status. They also are more likely to pull in visual data from an outside source, such as cover images and a graphical rating from Amazon or LibraryThing.

Pulling in outside data is a cornerstone of the nextgen experience. Amazon presents a wide range of information about a book to give a user a large amount of data to determine if the book is worth purchasing. In turn, library users have demanded that the catalog give them similar data within an item display so that they can determine if an item is worth checking out. Simply put, Amazon has allowed media consumers to become picky consumers, which in turn has made them a popular media source. Libraries, to compete with Amazon, have found that adding additional information about an item helps users make a better decision as to what items they want to check out. Fortunately, Amazon, Google Books, and other services have allowed their data to be licensed through an application programming interface, or API, and libraries in turn have added this outside data to the catalog. As a result, a characteristic of a nextgen catalog is the ability to either contain or link to such elements as reviews, tables of contents, and item summaries.

Nextgen catalogs also change the terminology that has been part of searching for library materials since the print card catalog. Users do not necessarily understand awkward terms such as record, OPAC, audiovisual, and Library of Congress Subject Heading. As a result, the nextgen catalogs often use terms such as description, item locator, specific media formats (DVD, CD, etc.), and subject. There also is an emphasis placed on keyword searches as the default, as users tend to understand “keyword” to mean an “all word anywhere” or a search for items about a particular topic. Additionally, less emphasis is placed on number searches such as ISBNs or call numbers because most users do not understand how these numbers work.

What I consider to be the most exciting aspect of nextgen catalogs is their ability to search like a user searches, not search like a librarian. As we know, librarians develop a search strategy before actually searching. This can take many forms, including limiting a search to a particular format, to an author, or to a specific title, which is done by using limiters on the main search screen of a catalog. We also may compose a more complicated search using a Boolean search or searching for a specific subject heading. However, users do not search like librarians. They are accustomed to entering a keyword in a single search box, seeing what comes up, and then limiting on the basis of the results. Nextgen catalogs let users search in this manner usually by displaying a sidebar on the results screen that allows users to limit simply by clicking on such options as format, subject, date, author, or title. The ability to search first and refine later is perhaps the most controversial element of the nextgen catalog because it is a major departure from traditional searching techniques. But from my observations I see that it is the feature users most appreciate.

Finally, nextgen catalogs are utilizing social media features such as tagging, user generated reviews, links to similar items, and the ability to create lists. All of these features are common to users of Amazon and many other online retailers, and all help users determine if an item is appropriate to their information need. These features are also dependent on actual use by individuals, though, because they have been used elsewhere for several years, there is optimism use will carry over to the library.

The Usability of the Nextgen Catalog

Now that nextgen catalogs are becoming increasingly commonplace among libraries, librarians are beginning to look at their usability to determine future directions of the catalog. The usability testing that I have seen reveals that library users are generally excited about any changes to the online catalog to make it more user friendly, but there is also evidence that they want librarians to continue to develop and transform the catalog.

I’ve recently conducted some intensive usability testing on two nextgen catalogs, VuFind and WorldCatLocal. VuFind is an open-source catalog interface developed by Villanova University. It overlays current catalog data and redisplays it similar to what I described above and includes a sidebar called “facets.” The Consortium for Academic Libraries in Illinois installed VuFind and offered it to interested institutions, and the University of Illinois is looking at it on a trial basis. WorldCatLocal is a product by OCLC that uses World-Cat data instead of catalog data. It is being looked at as a pilot project throughout Illinois, but the University of Illinois has opted to not yet make it publically available. I asked users typical of a large university library, including faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate students, to perform a variety of searches in each interface and to let me know what they thought.

Overall, users were very excited and were willing to accept anything other than the traditional catalog. They appreciated the new interfaces as being more streamlined, easier to read, and more graphical. Users were most appreciative of the features that allowed them to simply search by a keyword and then limit the results after their initial search, though they were often confused by the search limiting options, which showed that the catalogs still use jargon only librarians understand. Users that did not have extensive searching skills were more likely to appreciate the search first, limit later approach, while faculty members were faster to get frustrated with this technique. However, only two users out of fifty specified that they would prefer the traditional catalog to either VuFind or WorldCatLocal.

The undergraduates generally had the least comfort with searching library catalogs, and they had the most fascinating responses. Although they appeared more tolerant of limitations within the nextgen catalog, they spent less time looking for what they wanted and also had less of an understanding of keyword searching. These searchers were less likely to spend time just browsing for an item, especially if it meant using more than one limiting term or looking on more than one results page. It was apparent that they were used to putting in a text string and getting what they wanted, as they do with a Google search. If they did not get what they wanted, they quickly assumed the library did not have what they were looking for.

Another aspect of nextgen catalogs, the social media functions, also was included in the usability testing. VuFind has a simple function for individuals to create lists as well as tagging and reviews of individual items. WorldCatLocal also includes tagging, reviews, a complex system of user-created lists, and a “browse similar items” feature. Users really like the create-lists function, especially within WorldCatLocal, because users can create multiple lists and share them with other users. Similarly, the browse similar items proved useful to nearly all users. However, results were mixed about tagging and reviews. Only about half of those asked even knew what tagging was, and while most thought it is a useful addition to the catalog, they also admitted that they probably would not tag individual items. As for reviews, most users appreciated that they were available and that they could leave reviews, but there were many concerns about the authority and thoroughness of the reviews themselves.

Pages: 1 2 3