John,
Has anyone tried contrasting these OPAC terms with "actions" based on
the user's viewpoint? i.e.:
"I have a book title I want to look up."
"I know the title"
"I'm not sure about the title but I know some words in it."
"I want to find some things by an author."
"Show me authors with names like______"
"Show me things written by this author _____"
"I am interested in a subject."
etc.
I know that it would be hard to come up with the perfect short list, but
it seems like this is the real user view: what they know, and what they
want.
kc
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 11:31, John Kupersmith wrote:
> Usability4Lib & Web4Lib --
> Here's a summary of responses about the best terminology for certain key
> concepts in an online library catalog. Comments below are mine unless in
> quotes. The responses were mostly opinion, sometimes reinforced with
> anecdotal evidence. Apologies in advance if I've misconstrued any of them.
>
> re:
> >(1) Keyword searches
> >Which is best:
> >Title or Title Keyword(s) or Title Words
> >or ...?
>
> "Title Keyword(s)" was the favored option here, but there were differences
> of opinion.
>
> West Texas A&M has done usability testing on its OPAC and uses "Title
> Keywords". The poster also commented: "We've found our students are pretty
> comfortable with the word 'keyword'. They don't often do a good job of
> choosing their keywords, but they're comfortable with the terminology."
>
> Morrisville State College Library uses
> Keyword(s) Anywhere
> Keyword(s) in Title
> Keyword(s) in Author
> This catalog uses dynamic examples that change as the user clicks on
> different options. In my opinion this is a very powerful way to help users
> make informed choices:
> < http://oswlib.library.oswego.edu:4600/F >
>
> Another person commented: "I would say that 'Title Keyword(s)' is
> best. 'Title Words' is a close second, but I think it's good to be
> consistent with the terminology 'keyword,' and in my own experience it is a
> term that most users understand."
>
> Others prefer using "keyword" only to describe a general keyword search
> (e.g., combining author, title, subject, notes, etc.). In RLG's Eureka,
> "We do not, ever, use 'keyword' in any other context: 'Title word',
> 'Subject word,' 'Author word' etc. seem to work OK." The University of
> California's Melvyl catalog also uses "keyword(s)" for a general search,
> but avoids the word elsewhere except for "Author (keywords in name)."
>
> Other options mentioned:
> Title
> Title Contains Words
>
>
> re:
> >(2) Exact searches
> >Which is best:
> >Title (exact) or Title Phrase or Title begins with...
> >or ...?
>
> "Title begins with..." seems to be the favored option among those
> responding. Of course, a user might think initial articles should be
> included, but the potential for users misunderstanding "exact" of "phrase"
> also exists and could be even more serious. This seems worth testing.
>
> One person commented that: "[Title begins with] makes the most sense, since
> that's what the system is actually searching on. When I've explained to
> patrons (both in academic & public libraries) that a title search actually
> searches the beginning of the title, they are often surprised. They often
> think they have to type the entire title & subtitle in to get a hit."
>
> Another commented that this option isn't perfect but works better than the
> alternatives: "Nobody understands 'Exact title' or 'Browse' so we've used
> 'Begins with' and we still have to explain it to people." Two others also
> favored "Title begins with".
>
> One commented: "I'd be reluctant to use 'exact' because I suspect the
> students will assume that means they should include the initial
> a/an/the/etc. -- which is enough of a problem as is."
>
>
> re:
> >(3) Designating a telnet version of the catalog
> >Which is best:
> >telnet or text-based or command-line or terminal-style
> >or ...?
>
> Alas, no clear trend surfaced here, other than a general revulsion at the
> idea of a telnet catalog.
>
> One person suggested "text-based", another felt that "text-only" was more
> accurate. My personal take on this is that any reference to "text" may
> wrongly attract users who have seen the library use "full text" in other
> contexts and think it will search or deliver the full text of items. But -
> like most of the responses - this is an opinion, not test results.
>
> "Command line" got one semi-favorable comment, but was also criticized,
> along with "telnet" and "terminal-style", as being meaningless to users
> unfamiliar with that type of system.
>
> Another person reported that "Direct search" didn't work well because "a
> significant percentage of users seemed to think that meant a full-text
> search with no indexes required."
>
>
> One more general comment, which I think is all too true: "This is just
> proof that OPACs are designed for librarians, not patrons. Almost all of
> your choices assumes a certain level of knowledge on the part of the patron."
>
> --jk
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> John Kupersmith jkup at jkup.net http://www.jkup.net
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Reference Librarian http://www.lib.berkeley.edu
> Doe/Moffitt Libraries
> University of California, Berkeley
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
> this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
> to a plain text message.
> *********************************************************************
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------