Best terminology for OPAC searches - summary of responses

[John Kupersmith]

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.
*********************************************************************