[Web4lib] Getting catalog software vendors to make more useablesoftware choices

[Jim Campbell]

For an interesting take on both disintegration and massive RFPs from two ILS
vendors see The Dis-Integrating World of Library Automation by Roland Dietz
(Endeavor) and Carl Grant (VTLS) in the June 15 issue of Library Journal
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA606392.html
 
- Jim Campbell
 
Digital Access Coordinator and Librarian for German
E-Mail: Campbell at Virginia.Edu | Voice: 434-924-4985
 
Digital Access Services, University of Virginia Library
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/digital/das/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:33 PM
> To: Jenne Heise
> Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Getting catalog software vendors to 
> make more useablesoftware choices
> 
> When the U of Calif was doing its RFP for a vendor system we 
> looked at the RFPs that some other large libraries (including 
> LC) had done. These documents were 50-100 pages in length and 
> went into incredible detail about the workings of the modules 
> for acquisitions, serials check-in, etc. They said shockingly 
> little about the requirements for the user interface. When I 
> talked to the vendors, they confirmed that libraries buy 
> integrated library systems based on the library management 
> functions, not the user interface. It is the library 
> administration that buys the ILS, and their priority is 
> running the library, not providing user service. In fact, 
> this isn't unreasonable -- the library has to function well 
> in toto so that there is something that you can provide user 
> service to. But this means that the user interface gets short 
> shrift in the purchasing decision, and therefore there is no 
> incentive for vendors to spend their time and money improving 
> that part of their system.
> 
> It is for this reason that I feel that we should separate 
> library management and user interface functions of our 
> catalogs -- let the ILS integrate library management, and 
> have the user interface be a collective effort by some smart, 
> user-friendly, open source folks. All we would need from the 
> ILS vendors is a decent API into the database (well, and good 
> database design, but I'm assuming here that the problem is 
> the public view, not the backend database). Note that in 
> today's environment there is no reason why the user interface 
> has to be run off the exact same database as the management 
> systems -- it is possible to keep them in sync in other ways.
> 
> As I've said before, it is time to dis-integrate the ILS, for 
> the sake of our users.
> 
> kc
> 
> Jenne Heise wrote:
> 
> > For years, my library has been struggling with some basic usability 
> > flaws in our online catalog interface for the web, things 
> that can't 
> > apparently be done with the software as it stands and are 
> apparently 
> > low priority for the vendor.
> >
> > What are librarians doing to pressure catalog softwarevendors to 
> > address usability issues?
> >
> > Are there any libraries/library systems that have used authority 
> > control to provide suggestions of alternative terms for 
> searching? Are 
> > there ways to make the 'more like this' feature in catalogs 
> work well?
> > What works? What doesn't work?
> >
> > -- Jenne Heise
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> >
> 
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kcoyle at kcoyle.net 
> http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>