Two steps forward, three steps back

[Stacy Pober]

When I was still in library school, and for some years later, I liked
to go to library exhibit halls and compare online catalogs.  When OPACS
were still a relatively new feature of small to mid-size libraries, and
GUI interfaces to OPACS were rare, I liked to go to the vendor booths
and try to use their system.

Generally, when this happened, a salesperson would rush up and try to
stand right by me, directing me on how to use the catalog.  I would
send them away.  My theory was that if I, as a professional in the field
needed someone to instruct me on how to use the system, it was not ready
for prime time. The better ones had relatively intuitive interfaces.
Though many patrons at that time might find computers themselves to be
a little daunting, if they got past that, some of the catalogs were
still pretty easy to figure out.  Others required intensive help from
a professional just to get started.

Until recently, our library was using PALS, a library system designed at
Mankato State, part of the Minnesota State U. System until this summer.
Over the years, PALS progressed from having a slightly clunky text interface
to a reasonably smooth GUI (WebPALS).  And while the interface progressed,
so did each year's student body - our users now come in as savvy computer
users who already have experience searching user-friendly databases over the
web.

While PALS is still being used in some places, MSUS has been phasing out
PALS and migrating to Aleph.  So our consortium also migrated, but they
chose Endeavor Voyager (a/k/a WebVoyáge.)

I am not happy.  The patrons are not happy.  I feel like I've been
sent back in time to those unhappy days when a librarian had to perch
at the shoulder of every new patron to guide them step by step through the
use of a computerized library catalog.

The searching peculiarities of the system are extremely frustratiog.
And, since  my email address is on many of the library webpages, I'm
fielding patron complaints as well.  I'm unclear what the right response
is to someone who carps that the old system was much better than the new
one, other than to say something honest like, "Yes, you're right. The new
one stinks on ice."  (So far, I have restrained myself from responding
so bluntly.)

I'm trying to figure out how a major library vendor can put out a product
with such peculiar interpretations of user input.

Here are some search examples that fail and what Voyager wants to see:

  Failed basic "Find Keyword" search:  death of a salesman
  Working version: death and of and a and salesman
   (User MUST use boolean connectors even though it is explicitly a
   keyword search)

  Failed advanced "Find in Keyword Anywhere" search: war and peace
  Working version: war peace
    (Using boolean connectors in this search ensures the search
     will fail)

  Failed advanced "Find in Title" search: lion, the witch, and the wardrobe
  Working version: lion, the witch, the wardrobe
   (Again, system chokes when finding unexpected boolean "and")

  Failed advanced "Find in Title": kings and desperate men
  and
  Failed basic "Find in Title, Exact": kings and desperate men
  Working version: kings & desperate men
    (Users must use ampersand if it is part of the title. System does not
    know how to alias "and" and "&".

  Phrase search: the pit and the pendulum
  Working version is: "the pit and the pendulum"
    (Users must use quote marks even though this is explicitly a phrase
	search.)

In fairness, the system does warn about a few of these things, such as
instructing users to use quotes when choosing the phrase search mode.
But it is perceived by the user as being inconsistent - in basic search
mode, a keyword search must include boolean connectors between every term,
and in advanced search, a 'keyword anywhere' search *fails* if you use
boolean connectors.

Aside from writing this to vent, I wanted to ask how other libraries are
adapting to this system.  I don't expect us to do another system migration
for a long time, and any changes to the interface requested through
user's groups probably take a relatively long time.

I wonder if anyone has some sort of local interface that pre-processes
the user's input so that this system works more like some other databases
-- those which our patrons use easily.

Alternatively, can anyone share with me some online help pages or handouts
designed specifically to help patrons understand and work with the quirks
of the WebVoyáge system?

This is the first OPAC I've used that made me feel sentimental about card
catalogs...

--
Stacy Pober
Information Alchemist
Manhattan College Library
http://www.manhattan.edu/library/
stacy.pober at manhattan.edu



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Manhattan College Webmail.  http://www.manhattan.edu