 |
 |
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Cindy Harper <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I was going to comment that some of the Encore shortcomings mentioned in > the PDf do seem to be addressed in current Encore versions, although some > of these issues have to be addressed - for instance, there is a > spell-check, but it can give some surprising suggestions, though > suggestions do clue the user in to the fact that they might have a > misspelling/typo. I wrote about the woeful state of "spelling suggestions" a couple of years ago (among a lot of other things): http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/were-gonna-geek-this-mother-out/ (you can skip on down to the "In the Absence of Suggestion, There is Always Search…" - it's pretty TL;DR-worthy) Basically, the crux of it is, as long as spelling suggestions are based on standard dictionaries and not built /on the actual terms and phrases in the collection/ it's going to basically be a worthless feature. I do note there, though, that BiblioCommons apparently must build their dictionaries on the metadata in the system. -Ross. > > III's reaction to studies that report that users ignore the right-side > panel of search options was to provide a skin that has only two columns - > the facets on the left, and the search results on the middle-to-right. > This pushes important facets like the tag cloud very far down the page, and > causes a lot of scrolling, so I don't like this skin much. > > I recently asked a question on the encore users' list about how the tag > cloud could be improved - currently it suggests the most common subfield a > of the subject headings. I would think it should include the general, > chronological, geographical subdivisions - subfields x,y,z. For instance, > it doesn't provide good suggestions for improving the search "civil war" > without these. A chronological subdivision would help a lot there. But > then again, I haven't seen a prototype of how many relevant subdivisions > this would result in - would the subdivisions drown out the main headings > in the tag cloud? > > Cindy Harper, Systems Librarian > Colgate University Libraries > [log in to unmask] > 315-228-7363 > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Jonathan LeBreton <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Lucy Holman, Director of the U Baltimore Library, and a former colleague >> of mine at UMBC, got back to me about this. Her reply puts this >> particular document into context. It is an interesting reminder that not >> everything you find on the web is as it seems, and it certainly is not >> necessarily the final word. We gotta go buy the book! >> Lucy is off-list, but asked me to post this on her behalf. >> Her contact information is below, though.... >> >> Very interesting discussion This issue of what is right and feasible in >> discovery services and how to configure it is important stuff for many of >> our libraries and we should be able to build on the findings and >> experiences of others rather than re-inventing the wheel locally.... (We >> use Summon) >> >> - Jonathan LeBreton >> >> >> ------------------------ begin Lucy's explanation -------------- >> >> The full study and analysis are included in Chapter 14 of a new book, >> Planning and Implementing Resource Discovery Tools in Academic Libraries, >> Mary P. Popp and Diane Dallis (Eds). >> >> The project was part of a graduate Research Methods course in the >> University of Baltimore's MS in Interaction Design and Information >> Architecture program. Originally groups within the course conducted >> task-based usability tests on EDS, Primo, Summon and Encore. >> Unfortunately, the test environment of Encore led to many usability issues >> that we believed were more a result of the test environment than the >> product itself; therefore we did not report on Encore in the final >> analysis. The study (and chapter) does offers findings on the other three >> discovery tools. >> >> There were six student groups in the course; each group studied two tools >> with the same user population (undergrad, graduate and faculty) so that >> each tool was compared against the other three with each user population >> overall. The .pdf that you found was the final report of one of those six >> groups, so it only addresses two of the four tools. The chapter is the >> only document that pulls the six portions of the study together. >> >> I would be happy to discuss this with any of you individually if you need >> more information. >> >> Thanks for your interest in the study. >> >> >> Lucy Holman, DCD >> Director, Langsdale Library >> University of Baltimore >> 1420 Maryland Avenue >> Baltimore, MD 21201 >> 410-837-4333 >> >> ------------------------- end insert -------------------- >> >> Jonathan LeBreton >> Sr. Associate University Librarian >> Temple University Libraries >> Paley M138, 1210 Polett Walk, Philadelphia PA 19122 >> voice: 215-204-8231 >> fax: 215-204-5201 >> mobile: 215-284-5070 >> email: [log in to unmask] >> email: [log in to unmask] >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> > karim boughida >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 5:09 PM >> > To: [log in to unmask] >> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] U of Baltimore, Final Usability Report, link >> resolvers -- >> > MIA? >> > >> > Hi Tom, >> > Top players are EDS, Primo and Summon....the only reason I see encore in >> the >> > mix is if you have other III products which is not the case of Ubalt >> library. They >> > have now worldcat? Encore vs Summon is an easy win for summon. >> > >> > Let's wait for Jonathan LeBreton (Thanks BTW). >> > >> > Karim Boughida >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Tom Pasley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > > Yes, I'm curious to know too! Due to database/resource matching or >> > > coverage perhaps (anyone's guess). >> > > >> > > Tom >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:50 AM, karim boughida <[log in to unmask]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi All, >> > >> Initially EDS, Primo, Summon, and Encore were considered but only >> > >> Encore and Summon were tested. Do we know why? >> > >> >> > >> Thanks >> > >> Karim Boughida >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi helpful code4lib community, at one point there was a report >> online at: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://student-iat.ubalt.edu/students/kerber_n/idia642/Final_Usabilit >> > >> y_Report.pdf >> > >> > >> > >> > David Walker tells me the report at that location included findings >> > >> > about SFX and/or other link resolvers. >> > >> > >> > >> > I'm really interested in reading it. But it's gone from that >> > >> > location, >> > >> and >> > >> > I'm not sure if it's somewhere else (I don't have a title/author to >> > >> search >> > >> > for other than that URL, which is not in google cache or internet >> > >> archive). >> > >> > >> > >> > Is anyone reading this familiar with the report? Perhaps one of the >> > >> authors >> > >> > is reading this, or someone reading it knows one of the authors and >> > >> > can >> > >> be >> > >> > put me in touch? Or knows someone likely in the relevant dept at >> > >> > ubalt >> > >> and >> > >> > can be put me in touch? Or has any other information about this >> > >> > report or ways to get it? >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > >> > >> > Jonathan >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Karim B Boughida >> > >> [log in to unmask] >> > >> [log in to unmask] >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Karim B Boughida >> > [log in to unmask] >> > [log in to unmask] >>