User Response to and Knowledge about an Online Catalog (Research Note)

Abstract

BACKGROUND As online catalogs proliferate in li­ braries, complementing card catalogs with the ultimate prospect of substituting for them in many cases, the library profes­ sion has recognized the importance of de­ signing systems that are easily used and that reflect patron needs and expecta­ tions. The expression friendly, an overnight cliche, refers to one aspect of this concern. However, the cognitive problems of software design-the use of mnemonic commands, graceful transi­ tions between screens, and plentiful help or tutorial features-represent only one aspect of the system design chal­ lenge that will provide users with what · they want and expect. It is equally impor­ tant to provide access by the approaches users want to employ. The task of determining this is not easy, for users and librarians do not always speak the same language. For example, when users tell us that they want subject access, it is easy for librarians to narrow the problem to the 6xx fields of the MARC record and to make plans for Boolean or keyword approaches to this information. But as Lee Jones has· argued, what patrons seem to want is an approach to books by their real subjects, defined much more broadly. 1 To a patron, the term hydraulic represents a subject and should provide an access path regardless of whether it oc­ curs in subject, corporate author, or title fields. Clearly, the art of listening to our patrons requires great sensitivity and awareness. Research on user expectations and de­ mands is now conducted regularly and of­ fers the promise that systems designers will be able to work from a realistic ap­ praisal of the user and the user's preferred strategies. Studies by Moore and by Nor­ den and Lawrence have contributed sig­ nificantly to what we know by document­ ing the popularity of online catalogs, the desirability of subject searching, and the perception by users that insufficient re­ call, rather than the lack of precision in searches, is still a problem. 2 Most recently, OCLC, with the support of the Council on Library Resources, conducted a number of concurrent studies of online public access systems (OPACs) in a variety of library settings. These studies add even more to what we know about the users of auto­ mated catalogs, though there is much still to learn. .r