Access Initiatives : Summary of Discussion

Summary of Strategic Reports Discussion: Wed July 11, 2007

see under Access: (http://www.bu.edu/library/about/strategic-plan-9-06.html)

re Strategy Reports #12-22 (http://www.bu.edu/library/planning/2007/reports/index.html)

Convener: Tom Casserly

Notes: Holly Mockovak

Attending: Archie Elliott, Phyllis Payne, Sarah Hunter, Brian DiScenza, Linda K. Carr, Bob Hudson, Meredith Kirkpatrick, Chris Smith, Tim Lewontin, Linda Plunket, Helen Jacoby, Dave Snyder, Dan Benedetti, Rob Mee, Brock Edmunds, Diane D'Almeida, Deb Fields-Berry, John Sitkin, Mary Foppiani.

Today's meeting, July 11, fulfills the meeting originally planned for May 22 that was postponed due to scheduling conflicts. As with other of the Library's strategic report discussions, we met in the Conference Room and the convener had a laptop at hand for web destinations referenced.

Meeting Summary:Tom began the wrap-up by noting that future meetings or discussions have been implied by the discussions: something led by Tim on SFX,  some on scanning practices, policies, storage, and perhaps revisiting FAQs or their counterparts with new approaches. All concurred with Mary's comment that it was good to have this forum for learning and context on the status of several new developments, understanding some of the complicating issues, and sharing points of common concern. Bob noted that we are addressing some complex underlying technical issues and at the same time attempting to simplify and clarify for end-users. He noted FAQs or alternates to FAQs consistently cropped up in the discussions today even as we moved from strategy to strategy. Bob also reiterated the hope that the status of the component parts of the library strategic plan can be pulled closer together and presented in a simple, more concise or narrative report.

Meeting, some details. Tom started by asking us to look for opportunities to consolidate work on library strategies since we have so many and the idea of consolidation has come up in the three other planning discussion meetings held in May. He noted that lots of the strategies involve "nuts and bolts" of implementation such as the work on signage, ILLiad, SFX; all noted the common mention in reports of staff and time needed, an ongoing concern. Bob further spoke in favor of consolidating tasks since we are already interested and working on aspects of similar things, referring us to how President Brown has been able to refine and reduce a great deal of information into the current main points of the University's Plan. Linda P. then asked the group if we see specific areas to focus on and asked Tom to refresh us, through reading aloud, commentary, and screen projection, the original bulleted points under Access of the Library's Strategic Plan and citing the one or more strategies that grew out of each.

This was followed with strategy-by-strategy brief oral status reports from most leaders, which generated additional discussion, questions, or unresolved concerns (of which simply needing time was a common need).

Web usability study has led to redesign of library home pages, some changes in language, and overall reduction in amount of words. The target user group was undergraduates. Holly asked if library student assistants can be involved in the further testing and Linda responded that, unfortunately, most of them know too much and would not be neutral subjects.

OPAC aspects. Questions remain on solidifying policy options for portrayal of electronic journal holdings in the OPAC. Thanks to discussion led by Gretchen in the spring, detail on the various holdings and manifestations of print and microfilm display are being very nicely clarified by Serials as new issues come in, or, by special request. The display of electronic journals holdings and their relevant bibliographic and access information is much more complex to work through, even though this would appear simple in concept: either eJournals holdings attach to a master bib (where other attached holdings represent print, microfilm), or, an eJournal holdings attaches only to its own bib.

The Electronic Resources Management module was hoped to be an efficient and automated solution for populating the catalog with holdings statements. Tim noted that by late fall 2006, their implementation working group had identified close to 10 problematic points that had to be addressed (ranging from displaying fields, limits, and more) before moving ahead on a large load. A mini-load of a few titles was tried out early in the process. The ERM is populated with vendor and licensing information, however.

Tim noted that SFX recently was launched and that intensive work on that took priority over the ERM load. The Find@bu.edu icon alerts users to open linking from, say, a database citation to BU full-text holdings. However, there are different linking scenarios users will encounter, some are immediate and transparent, others require extra navigation. Tim and Tom are thinking that an SFX information meeting for library staff might be planned for later in August in order to show how SFX works with its targets and to consolidate what we and users can expect, to date.  We need to be thinking of how we will help users to seemingly hit dead ends with SFX.

We learned of enhanced cataloging for our dissertations through the proposed inclusion (as standard practice here) of the dissertation's abstract in the bib record. Abstracts would include specialized vocabulary to make the document more discoverable and at the same time assist in the assigning of LC and local subject headings when performing original cataloging.

Gretchen and the IAC created a Wiki for their use in development of FAQs, which we viewed, and the idea of FAQs generated much comment: Do we need a FAQ? Should Ask-a-Lib become a FAQ? Rob: can 'Ask' questions be reviewed and turned into FAQs? Dave: why are people asking the questions that they're asking in the first place? Do FAQs actually indicate need for re-design, and if so, should a FAQ wait until redesign--of the OPAC, for instance. Or should FAQs drive re-design? We agree a need for a simple-to-create FAQ is desirable, however Susan's (for Ask) is coming along nicely and most staff don't have her level of expertise in the creation and maintenance of this. The IAC has also considered creating a Blog for information traditionally included in a FAQ. Diane: would people actually take the time to use it? As staff viewed some sample FAQ pages on the Wiki, Holly noted that the topics and text lend themselves to very short 20-30" videos with voiceover such as can be created through Captivate (or Camtasia, also a BU-supported product) and that such videos could communicate a very great deal. NB: the instruction Wiki password is instruction, to see all, select the side tab 'recent activity.'

Tom on Illiad: the library is operational with Illiad in our role as a provider to external institutions. Work continues on implementation of Illiad for our library to become a provider to BU's own community of patrons, and this includes scheduling training sessions and working on the front end, that is, the web pages that patrons will use to sign in and submit their request. A Kerberos sign on for users would be ideal, it is not yet set up.

David advises us that while a high-end book style scanner has been ordered, and will likely reside in semi-secure staff area on the first floor of Mugar, the practical matters to overcome will be many: who will use it, what can or should be used on it (and why), how will information be stored, how much information and in what format(s) can we expect; will there be immediate public-service related activity, with or without charge, as well as extended project use (open access initiatives participation).

We passed over suites of web pages noting the good overall progress in this area that's still happening since it began with Tim's work several years ago.

III system: Dave reports BU is still negotiating on a package that will bring us Kerberos (rather than pin) patron sign-on for their library account management and other related services as needed. It is likely we will be receiving the Syndetic Solutions (Bowker) book covers images, including reviews and summaries, for the OPAC. Archie: what associates the book cover image in the catalog? Dave: the ISBN.

Helen reports that she, Deb, and various others as available have been attending meetings and workshops; the articulation of public policy is needed and this is not easy. Holly noted that ironically, the areas of e-reserves and copyright are where FAQs would be most welcome despite the difficulties.

Bob noted that the Mugar group, and the libraries of STH and MED have left Nelinet and are working directly with OCLC for all support and training services; our move was part of this BLC decision. LAW is continuing with Nelinet in order to continue with free training benefits.

Updating us on signage, Meredith reported that an order has been placed for triangular signs at Mugar which will be used to clarify the computing situation, and some directional signs will be prepared as well. Meredith, Ruth and Donald A. worked on this, with assistantce from Cathy M. It's hoped they will be installed in time for the fall semester. Holly commented that this is a visual equivalent of of what usability is after in web redesign and what IAC is after in identifying appropriate FAQ content. We hope to find some consolidation points and all reflected on what can we do to reduce the need of FAQs by freshly experiencing what the users do.

As the meeting neared an end, we reflected on the nature of the public presentation of our strategic plan, that is, some of the language is descriptive, some of it is library-ese, and the need to find improvement. This could mean turning to a narrative style interspersed with visuals, for example.

Tom noted that future meetings or discussions are implied: something led by Tim on SFX,  some on scanning practices, policies, storage, and perhaps revisiting FAQs or their counterparts. Mary commented that she felt it was a good meeting because the forum brought her both communication and context on the status of several new developments and points of common concern; all concurred that we learned and benefitted from this chance together. Bob noted that FAQs increasingly cropped up in the discussions today even as we moved from strategy to strategy. Bob also reiterated the hope that the status of the component parts of the library strategic plan can be pulled together and presented in a simple, more concise report.