The great OPAC debate

RE: The great OPAC debate

2008-09-23T12:59:53Z

The WorldCat Local pilot project, which some of the Illinois library systems are participating in, does exactly that. When it's set up, the display will show the local library holdings, then the consortial holdings, then Illinois library holdings, and finally all of WorldCat. The project is being coordinated by Lincoln Trail Library System.

The great OPAC debate

2008-09-18T23:48:46Z

My own library is part of a largish consortium (CCS) in northeastern Illinois. It would make perfect sense to me if after searching within our library alone (the default) and searching within the consortium the OPAC could search ever wider rings of ownership, eventually WorldCat, w/o the user having to do more than click on an OK for a wider search.

Pray that he/she can spell, though ...

RE: Re: The great OPAC debate

2008-09-18T16:00:15Z

"actually finding what they are lookin for"

This is the big point. I know when I go into an OPAC and do a keyword search on a word...I expect to get titles with that word in them - not just somewhere in a note. I think most users have that expectation. When I don't get the kind of titles I expect, I understand why. But, most users don't. They just think the OPAC sucks. And they're right.

Some of the newer OPACs are dealing with some of these issues - such as adding relevancy ranking - but that's still not solving the problems, just improving it slightly. The "next-gen" OPACs I've tried do a better job than some of the more standard OPACs.

Re: The great OPAC debate

2006-06-15T18:02:07Z

That *is* funny.

Re: The great OPAC debate

2006-06-15T17:39:30Z

This is pretty funny --check it out:
http://library2.csusm.edu/amazon/index.htm

It's an Amazon GUI, designed as if Jeff Bezos had tried to imitate a typical library OPAC. The contrast with the real Amazon is illuminating.

Thanks to Jessamyn West for the link.

Re: The great OPAC debate

2006-05-30T23:03:37Z

I don't know that *most* would, though I agree that many would. It's a difficult issue. Technology changes so rapidly that people who were "early adopters" 20 years ago find themselves being curmudgeonly resisters today ... there are indeed IT types (UNIX administrators, say) who *still* don't like GUI interfaces.

Re: The great OPAC debate

2006-05-30T20:18:53Z

Good point about what the OPAC *could* be. I think the criticisms started to surface about the same time that Web 2.0 features hit the spotlight. The ILS systems from large companies are not quick enough to adapt to a changing environment. I know that Innovative and Sirsi (and others?) are scrambling to enhance their products. Even if the next generation of OPACs fulfill the current expectations, they may become dinosaurs again in a matter of a couple of years.

I don't think the average library patron really knows what the OPAC is or is not doing, but I do think that most patrons would respond favorably to more thorough search results (actually finding what they are lookin for) and to the Amazon-style recommendations and opportunities to read and post reviews.

Speaking of the card catalog (and your bite marks ;)), I love this idea about [url http://www.aadl.org/node/1367 ]restoring marginalia[/url] to the OPAC.

Re: The great OPAC debate

2006-05-30T19:08:13Z

I don't think it's so much that they suck, but that they suck in comparison to what they *could* be -- which is pretty much where Web 2.0 (and Library 2.0) are leading us.

That said, I'm not sure most of our users (I'm speaking from a public library perspective) would appreciate "the best." The added utility might get in the way of basic use.

Those of us who heard the knashing of teeth when the card catalogs were taken away appreciate the problem, maybe. I've still got a few bite marks.

The great OPAC debate

2006-05-30T19:01:41Z

The first time I heard the phrase "OPACs suck" was at the LITA Emerging Technologies presentation at ALA 2005. Almost all of the 10 panelists echoed this sentiment, which has now reverberated around the blogosphere. Karen Schneider wrote a series of ALA TechSource blog articles on the subject and elicited a host of comments:
[url http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html ]Part One[/url]
[url http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html ]Part Two[/url]
[url http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html ]Part Three[/url]

It's clearly a hot-button issue. What do you want from your automation system that you're not getting currently? What is your image of the ideal library automation system? Are the needs of public library systems significantly different from those of academic libraries, where most of the debate is currently foocused?