MyLibrary Focus Group Session Summary

See sections below:

• Introduction
• Results
• Appendix A: Focus Group Sessions Detailed Summary
• Appendix B: List of Focus Groups
• Footnotes

Introduction

Background: The MyLibrary@CDL prototype was made available in July 2000. During the test phase (July-December 2000) feedback was gathered from users in order to improve this tool and guide future development decisions.

Goal: To discover patrons' expectations and desires regarding customization tools and to get initial feedback on the MyLibrary interface.

Focus group methodology: Focus group sessions were held at three campuses(Berkeley, Irvine, and San Francisco); two sessions were with graduate students, two with faculty, and one with library staff (see Appendix B for more details). The format of the MyLibrary discussion at each session was similar; it began with a general discussion about personalization tools, followed by a PowerPoint presentation with screen shots of the MyLibrary interface. Participants were then asked to comment on the interface (what they liked or disliked; what was missing, etc.) and to discuss what would entice them to use this tool (e.g. features, functionality, design elements, etc.). At the UCSF sessions additional questions related to their library home page and PDAs (personal digital assistants) were asked. A summary of those findings is not included in this report. [1]

Results

Focus Group Sessions Summary

For the most part, the groups (faculty, students, and library staff) had similar opinions. One notable exception was that library staff expressed concern that patrons might have difficulty knowing when to accept and remove "cookies," or even remembering to remove them, particularly while working at public terminals.

Participants' familiarity with or prior use of personalization tools fell along group lines; that is, students tended to be more familiar with them than faculty and library staff.

The overarching theme of all the focus group sessions was that in order for MyLibrary to be truly useful it has to be fully integrated with existing systems; fully integrated with the campus library, CDL resources, and with existing services such as Update, Request, and Profile. Other integration ideas that were expressed included: integration with bibliography tools such as EndNote, integration with web search engines, and integration with campus information (e.g., course registration, course pages, etc.). Additionally, several participants expressed an interest in having tools that would help them to organize print resources.

Keeping with the integration theme, many participants saw MyLibrary as potentially simplifying remote access to library resources; they would like to login once to their MyLibrary accounts and have remote access to all library resources and their campus account information (inventory, printing account, etc.). [2]

Across the groups, it was suggested that MyLibrary should include a list of recommended sites such as "top 10 database" or "top 5 links chosen by others in your field." Faculty members expressed an interest in creating customized "MyLibraries" for their students, which would contain resources relevant for a course or a series of courses.

Some of the common themes regarding design issues included the desire for greater control over the interface; for example, creating their own organizational categories (e.g. based on research projects, or topics of personal interest), displaying all resources on a single MyLibrary page, and choosing more than one discipline. Also, many participants felt that the process of adding and removing resources needed to be simplified.

Library Staff Discussion Summary

In addition to the formal focus groups, librarians at UCLA, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, and UC Santa Cruz also met to discuss MyLibrary.

The comments received from these groups were similar in many ways to those of the focus groups. In addition, there were several comments that reflected the experience and concerns of library staff:

• Publicity issues, especially portals and personalized sites operated by the campuses and libraries; concern that MyLibrary might detract from local user education efforts.
• Add capability of setting up profiles for special user groups, such as students in a class. Ideally there should be an option to make such a profile "read-only".
• Add capability for each campus to customize its users' view of MyLibrary, with special graphics, default links, news messages, etc.
• Safeguard privacy of users at public terminals, e.g., using a scripted logoff sequence.

Appendix A:Focus Group Sessions Detailed Summary

Participants' Prior Experience with Personalization Tools

• Most students had heard of or worked with personalization tools; fewer faculty and library staff had.
• Why they used or liked these tools: liked having most used resources in one place and having personalized information (e.g. weather, stocks).
• What they disliked about these tools: maintenance (e.g., keeping the information current in general and in line with their current research); too complex to use; they offer more than you need.

Marketing Issues How well they liked MyLibrary, how would it fit into campus library sites:

• Who would use MyLibrary? No consensus: some felt it would be for those who did not know much about library resources; others felt that only savvy library users would find it useful.
• Like the idea of having a personalized ejournal list with links to content so users can bypass having to go to multiple places (campus library page and CDL pages).
• Campus library page vs. MyLibrary: no consensus: some would just use MyLibrary and not the library page; some wanted to keep the library page. [3]
• Some expressed concern that after users have added resources to MyLibrary they would become locked into those resources and would not explore for new things.

Functionality

• Integrate with existing services (Update, Profile, Saved Lists, Search History, and Request, and allow users to view/track Request orders).
• Integrate with campus library system (e.g., saved searches in Pathfinder, access to inventory, link to book reserve lists; campus printing accounts).
• One account/authentication for everything-one login provides you with remote access to all resources through MyLibrary and to your campus account.
• Provide ways to organize print resources.
• Ability to add resources not subscribed to by your campus; link to Request.
• Send announcements to users based on their chosen discipline and customized for their campus regarding: recent acquisitions; new services; reminder about overdue books; alerts about books on hold; alerts about availability of requested articles/photocopies; new resource recommendations.
• Link to bibliography tools (e.g., EndNote).
• Integrate with web search engines (e.g., Google).
• Integrate with campus information/functions: class registration; course pages; link to email (and how to access and set it up).
• Content: add recommended resources (e.g., top 10 databases chosen by others), add "recommend to others" button.
• Ability to create course-specific MyLibrary profiles, accessible by multiple students (on a class by class basis); create generic MyLibrary for particular group (e.g., new users, or particular group of faculty).
• Provide default personal links.
• Directory Browsing/Searching: add more complex search capability; browse categories offers too many results; provide more detailed catalog description to help users decide whether to select a resource or not (suggestion: provide access to the items' tables of contents).
• Allow for article-level links.
• Other suggestions: "Etoc" Service (integrate into MyLibrary-send tables of contents of ejournals that are based on pre-selected criteria); integrate with cross-resource search tool, i.e., SearchLight; add password recovery mechanism; replicate book browsing; offer a basic and advanced mode.

Design

• Offer users the choice to create multiple views of their chosen resources (e.g. based on their research projects, by topic, by topic by format type).
• Allow users to create their own structure: all categories on one page (MyYahoo model-each category appears on the home page with a few items below, you can then click to see the full list); resources in hierarchical folder structure; categories on several pages as it is now.
• Offer the ability to choose more than one discipline: when setting preferences; when searching/browsing the Directory; when users are offered the "narrow topic" choice.
• Reduce the number of steps to add and delete resources:
• Add: too many clicks in Directory; while on the web don't want to cut and paste URLs (make them "pop-in"); provide ability to add more than one resource at a time.
• Delete: remove the two confirmations (add a "delete without confirmation" button).
• Labels: too library-oriented (databases, reference texts); add labels for functions/tasks (e.g. search for articles; search Medline).
• Lack of graphics is good (easy to look at and faster to load).
• Cookies: make warning stronger; add a question such as "do you usually use MyLibrary at home or public terminals, then do ..." .
• Navigation: want to keep MyLibrary context while searching for resources (one suggestion was to add frames).
• Add pull-down menus for all categories not just personal links.
• Help/documentation.
  • Add roll-overs with descriptive information to headings.
  • Add clear and detailed help; add help button.
  • Add clear instructions on each page of how to add resources.

Communication

• Getting the word out: no consensus: some liked email; some would rather receive paper announcements in their boxes.
• Suggestion: add a "what's new" button that also specifies which disciplines/students it would be of interest to (e.g., "of interest to dental students").

Appendix B: List of Focus Groups

1. UC Berkeley

Participants: Nine graduate students
Participants' discipline: Engineering Department

Moderator: Pat Maughan, User Research Coordinator, The Teaching Library, UC Berkeley
Observers: Camille Wanat, Head, Kresge Engineering Library, UC Berkeley; Brian Quiqley, Electronic Outreach Librarian, Kresge Engineering Library, UC Berkeley [4]

2.UC Irvine

Participants: Seven faculty members
Participants' Discipline: Information and Computer Science; College of Medicine; Engineering; College of Medicine; Physics; Arts; Cognitive Sciences
Moderator: Pat Maughan, User Research Coordinator, The Teaching Library, UC Berkeley
Observers: Jim Crooks, Health Sciences Librarian, UC Irvine; Rosalie Lack, Evaluation and Instruction Analyst, CDL

3. UC San Francisco

Session 1

Participants: Eight library staff

Session 2

Participants: Eight graduate students
Participants' Disciplines:
Four medical students (two first years, one second year, one third year; left early)
Two pharmacy students (both second years)
One nursing student (first year; left early)
One dental/PhD student (third year?) Session 3

Session 3

Participants: Eight faculty members
Moderators: Gail Persily Assistant Director, Informatics Education; Clair Kuykendall, Education Coordinator for Nursing and Behavioral Sciences
Observers: John Kupersmtih, Service Design Analyst, CDL; Rosalie Lack, Evaluation and Instruction Analyst, CDL [5]

Footnotes

[1] Complete notes of each session and discussion guides are available upon request.
[2] Concerns about privacy were only raised at one session by one faculty member; at other sessions either the issue was never raised or participants stated that they were confident in the library's protection of their privacy.
[3] It is not coincidental that this issue was only discussed at UC San Francisco where their focus group included a discussion on the future of their library home page, Galen II.
[4] Special thank you to Brian for sharing his comprehensive summary of the UC Berkeley focus group; it was integrated into this summary.
[5] Rosalie was not present at Session 3.