The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.

htm

LHT 29,2

THEME ARTICLES

Next generation or current generation?

A study of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries in the USA and Canada
Sharon Q. Yang and Melissa A. Hofmann
Moore Library, Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, USA
Abstract
Purpose The study described in this paper aims to identify the progress made in the efforts to model current online public access catalogs (OPACs) after the next generation catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the USA and Canada. Design/methodology/approach A random sample of 260 colleges and universities was selected from Petersons Guide to Four-Year Colleges 2009, an estimated 10 percent of the total population of 2,560 listed academic institutions. A checklist of 12 features of the NGC was used to evaluate the OPACs of the 260 libraries in the sample. The authors took as the OPAC that which the library linked to as its catalog, even though some might be more properly considered discovery tools or discovery layers. Some libraries used more than one OPAC interface simultaneously; in this case, each OPAC was analyzed separately. In the case of several institutions using the same consortial OPAC, only the rst instance of the OPAC was analyzed. About 15 percent of the institutions (n 40) in the sample either did not have web sites or did not provide access to their online catalogs. In all, a total of 233 unique instances of OPACs were analyzed. Data were collected from September 2009 through July 2010. The ndings can be extrapolated to the population at the 95 percent condence level with a condence interval of ^3. Findings While bits and pieces of the next generation catalog are steadily working themselves into the current catalog, academic libraries still have a long way to go. About 16 percent of the OPACs in the sample did not show any advanced features of the NGC. More than half of the libraries (61 percent) had only one to ve advanced features in their OPACs. Many of those with six or more NGC features were discovery tools. Only 3 percent of the OPACs in the sample (n 8) demonstrated seven to ten out of the 12 functionalities of the NGC, and they were instances either of WorldCat Local or Summon. The weak areas were federated searching, relevance based on circulation statistics, and recommendations based on patron transactions. Originality/value This is the rst and only study on a large scale conducted thus far that evaluates the progress towards the NGC in academic libraries in the USA and Canada. The ndings help academic librarians to recognize and pin-point the weak links in implementing a true next generation catalog. Keywords Catalogues, Online catalogues, Academic libraries, Search engines Paper type Research paper

266
Received August 2010 Revised December 2010 Accepted December 2010

Library Hi Tech Vol. 29 No. 2, 2011 pp. 266-300 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0737-8831 DOI 10.1108/07378831111138170

1. Introduction The next generation catalog (NGC) has been the focus of discussion for the past ve years and, as a concept, is no longer new to librarians. It is not only being discussed and developed actively, but its features are also already being implemented in current

catalogs (Kudo and Kataoka, 2008). It remains a mystery exactly where libraries stand in the twenty-rst century in regards to their OPACs amidst heated discussions. Is next generation becoming current generation? Marshall Breeding stated:
One might think of the term next-generation as describing something new that might be developed in the future. Libraries seek next-generation catalogs here and now; the need isnt future or abstract. Libraries do not necessarily have to wait (Breeding, 2007, p. 5).

A study of OPACs

The study described in this paper investigated how much our current online catalogs have transformed into the much desired and talked about, the so-called next generation catalog, in academic libraries in North America. 2. Literature review The library world has witnessed the evolution of several generations of online catalogs:
First generation online catalogs (1960s and 1970s) provided the same access points as the card catalog, dropping the user into a pre-coordinate index . . . With the second generation of online catalogs came keyword or post-coordinate (Boolean) searching (Antelman et al., 2006, p. 128).

267

As early as the 1980s, discussions began on the next generation of online catalogs (the third generation), but the term the next generation catalog was not coined until the mid-2000s. It denotes a modern online library catalog with a specic set of advanced characteristics. The term rst appeared in the library literature in 1997 with some vagueness (Trommer, 1997). In 2006, one major article was published describing the process of deploying Endeca at North Carolina State University, adding esh and blood to the NGC (Antelman et al., 2006). In the following year Marshall Breeding summarized the features of the next generation catalog and described them at great length (Breeding, 2007). Since then, the NGC has taken on concrete forms. While most of the literature on the next generation catalog comprised opinion papers and commentaries, a literature review revealed three relevant studies on online catalogs in recent years. All of the three studies measured progress towards the NGC in the design and functions of current OPACs. One of the studies was done by Truong Dai Luong and Chern Li Liew, two library school faculty members who used a checklist of the usability features and evaluated online catalogs of thirteen New Zealand academic libraries (Luong and Liew, 2009). The catalogs under investigation were the front ends of six integrated library systems (ILS): Voyager, Liberty3, Horizon, SIRSI, Spydus, and Millennium. The features on the checklist included categories such as bibliographic display, text, layout, labels, and user assistance, and each category had a list of associated features. Most of those features are typical of the NGC by consensus in the library community. Not surprisingly, one discovery was that none of these OPACs provided features such as faceted navigation, metasearch functionality, word cloud and most popular ranking. In other words:
[m]any new features that are associated with search engines such as word cloud, faceted navigation, the most popular ranking and related items are, however, not found in the surveyed OPACs (Luong and Liew, 2009, p. 376).

This conrmed the authors belief that many proprietary ILS OPACs are outdated. It has long been known that legacy catalogs do not match up to the standards of the NGC.

LHT 29,2

268

Another signicant study was carried out by Tanja Mercun and Maja Zumer, two faculty members in the library school of a Slovenian university (Mercun and Zumer, 2008). They evaluated six online catalogs and compared them to Amazon. The online catalogs under investigation included the Slovene union catalog COBISS, WorldCat, and those of four American public libraries. The purpose of the study was to establish how libraries have undertaken the mission of developing the next generation catalogues and how they compare to new tools such as Amazon (Mercun and Zumer, 2008, p. 243). The six OPACs were checked against the selected characteristics of the NGC, such as a simple keyword search box on each page, spell checking, navigation, enriched content, recommended item lists, cover art images, etc. One of the ndings indicated that in spite of the efforts by legacy catalog vendors to modernize their user interfaces, none of them managed to offer as vast a range of features as Amazon does. Once again it conrmed Roy Tennants repeated assessments of OPAC improvements:
After all, you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still very much a pig (Tennant, 2005, p. 34; Tennant, 2007).

In light of those ndings, one might conclude that implementing a discovery tool may be an easier solution than modernizing an existing OPAC:
A discovery tool is often referred to as a stand-alone OPAC, a discovery layer, a discovery layer interface, an OPAC replacement, or the next generation catalog (Yang and Wagner, 2010, p. 691).

It is usually a third-party product that a library purchases separately to overlay the ILS-integrated public interface in order to provide more functionality, such as federated searching, faceted browsing, spell checking and more. The third study was done by Sharon Yang and Melissa Hofmann, two library faculty members at Rider University, to measure the progress towards the NGC in three individual ILS OPACs: Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager (Yang and Hofmann, 2010). They used the ten features of the NGC based on Marshall Breedings narration (Breeding, 2007) as yardsticks in the comparison. The ndings indicate that the Koha OPAC comes closest to the next generation catalog with six NGC features, followed by Evergreen with four NGC features and Voyager with three NGC features. While the three studies described thus far centered on evaluating the progress made towards the NGC, they were very limited in magnitude. One covered 13 academic libraries in New Zealand and the other covered one Slovenian catalog and ve American libraries, most of which were public libraries. The study by Yang and Hofmann only examined the OPACs of three ILSs. Therefore, the ndings from those studies cannot be extrapolated to libraries at large, specically to academic libraries in the US and Canada. So far, there is no study that has evaluated the online catalogs of academic libraries on a large scale in the US and Canada with regard to the progress towards the NGC. 3. Purpose and scope of the study The study described in this paper aimed to identify how much libraries have achieved and where libraries have failed in the effort to modernize OPACs to become the next generation catalog. The scope of this study included the total population of academic libraries of four-year colleges and universities in the USA and Canada.

4. Research methodology 4.1 Sampling The targeted population comprised all academic libraries of four-year colleges and universities in the US and Canada. For this purpose, the Alphabetical Listing of Colleges and Universities from Petersons Four-Year Colleges 2009 was used to represent the total population, and the total number of entries was 2,560:
For 40 years, Petersons has given students and parents the most comprehensive, up-to-date information on undergraduate institutions in the US and Canada (Petersons, 2009).

A study of OPACs

269

The guide has been a standard reference book for those who seek college information. Therefore, the authors assumed that Petersons provides an exhaustive list of all the four-year colleges and universities in the US and Canada and could be used to represent the targeted population. The authors arbitrarily decided on a sample size of 10 percent of the total population because it was a manageable size for research. This translated into a nal sample of 260 academic libraries, about 10 percent of the listed colleges and universities in Petersons. To be truly random, each entry on the alphabetical listing of colleges and universities was given a sequential number from 1 to 2,560. The random integer generator (Haahr, 2010) was used to generate a list of random numbers in the ranges of 1 to 2,560. Based on this list of random numbers, the colleges and universities with the matching numbers were picked from the listing until the sample size reached 260. Sometimes Petersons lists multiple locations of a college as separate entities, and thus random numbers fell on different locations. When this happened, the rst entry went into the sample and the authors skipped the subsequent entries as duplicates if hit by the random numbers. For instance, DeVry University has 90 campuses and each may operate as an independent entity, but they all share the same library system. In that case, the authors kept the rst DeVry University location and skipped the subsequent locations if chosen by the random numbers. The authors used the sample size calculator to determine the condence interval, or the range of possible errors, given the sample size of 260 and a predetermined condence level (Creative Research Systems, 2010). For this research, a 95 percent condence level was chosen, as it is the more commonly used parameter in statistics. According to the sample size calculator, with this sample size the condence interval is estimated to be at ^3 if the condence level is predetermined to be 95 percent. In other words, one can be 95 percent condent that the ndings reported in this paper can be extrapolated to the whole population with a margin of error plus or minus 3. 4.2 Evaluation criteria The authors used the checklist of 12 features of the NGC from a previous study that evaluated NGC components in discovery tools (Yang and Wagner, 2010). The list was composed of commonly acknowledged features for next generation catalogs by consensus in the library literature. The checklist is a combination of characteristics of the NGC as summarized in Marshall Breedings Introduction in Library Technology Reports (Breeding, 2007) and Peter Murrays PowerPoint presentation on OPAC discovery layer tools (Murray, 2008). The checklist is as follows: . Single point of entry for all library resources. The library catalog should be a single search or federated search for all library materials, including pointers to

LHT 29,2
.

270
.

the articles in electronic databases, as well as records of books and digital collections. One search should retrieve all relevant materials. Presently, patrons have to search the catalog for books and videos, databases for journal articles, and digital collections and archives for local images and materials. State-of-the-art web interface. Library catalogs should have a modern design similar to e-commerce sites. This criterion is highly subjective and, as such, is difcult to quantify. A NGC should look and feel like popular sites, such as Google, Netix, and Amazon. Enriched content. Library catalogs should include book cover images and user-driven input, such as comments, descriptions, ratings, and tag clouds. The enriched content can be either from library patrons, commercial sources, or both. Faceted navigation. Library catalogs should be able to display the search results as sets of categories, such as subject terms, dates, languages, availability, formats, locations, etc. Faceted navigation is the ability to narrow down a search by choosing from these facets. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page. The NGC starts with a simple keyword search box that looks like that of Google or Amazon. A link to the advanced search should be present when a user feels the need to use it. This simple box should appear on every page of the OPAC as users navigate and conduct searches. Though this feature is considered to be one of the important characteristics of a NGC, in reality it is not implemented widely. As a matter of fact, most libraries do not start their OPACs with a simple keyword search box even if vendors provide the option to have this as the default start page. Librarians prefer an advanced search and feel that the quick search is more likely to produce results with less precision. Relevancy. Librarians complain that OPAC relevancy results are problematic. The NGC should improve relevancy ranking with increased precision. In addition, circulation statistics should join the relevancy results criteria. More frequently circulated books indicate popularity and usefulness, and they should be ranked higher on the top of the display. Items deemed important enough to have multiple copies should also receive higher relevancy ranking. Did you mean . . . ? Spell-checking should be in place in a NGC. When an error appears in the search, the OPAC should pop up the query with the correct spelling or suggest a list of terms so that users can simply click on one of them to get the search results. Recommendations/related materials. This is a feature common to e-commerce sites. Typically, the customer is shown additional items with a suggestion like Customers who bought this item also bought . . . Likewise, a next generation catalog should recommend books for readers in a similar manner based on transaction logs. This should take the form of Readers who borrowed this book also borrowed the following . . . or a link to Recommended Readings. User contribution. The NGC allows users to add data to records. User input includes descriptions, summaries, reviews, criticism, comments, rating and ranking, and tagging or folksonomies. Tag clouds can serve as access points and descriptive keywords leading to frequently used items. Traditionally, only

professionally trained cataloging librarians are allowed to create or add content to bibliographical records. RSS feeds. Really simple syndication (RSS) is a way to brief users about frequently updated content on a web site. RSS feeds can be congured to send things such as new book lists, top-circulating book lists, or news to users who subscribe. Integration with social networking sites. When a librarys catalog is integrated with social networking sites, patrons can share links to library items with their friends on social networks like Twitter, Facebook, and Delicious. Persistent links. NGC records contain a stable URL capable of being copied and pasted and serving as a permanent link to that record.

A study of OPACs

271

4.3 Data collection Each feature from the list was checked against the librarys online catalog, if available, for each of the 260 four-year colleges and universities in the sample (see Appendix 1). Appendix 2 shows a list of OPACs by vendor that were searched and evaluated[1]. The data was entered into a data collection form in Excel (see Appendix 3). The authors determined the OPAC to be that which the library called its catalog, even if some might consider that particular OPAC to be a discovery tool. The difference between a discovery tool/discovery layer and a traditional OPAC is that the former is an add-on or overlay for the existing catalog interface, while the latter may be the public access module of an integrated library system. A total of 41 academic libraries (16 percent) were using discovery tools, whether in combination with a legacy catalog or alone. Based on this number, one can infer that about 13 to 19 percent of the academic libraries in the population provide discovery interfaces (see Figure 1). A total of 17 libraries (6.5 percent) in the sample were found to use the same consortial catalog, such as the I-Share libraries in Illinois that are part of CARLI. Four out of the ve consortia represented in the sample offered next generation OPACs/discovery tools in combination with their particular classic catalog[2]. In order not to count the same OPAC twice, subsequent instances of libraries with the

Figure 1. The institutions in the sample

LHT 29,2

272

same consortial catalog (12 instances) were removed from the OPAC analysis (see Appendix D)[3]. Thus, those 17 libraries only yielded ve OPACs to be analyzed. In total, 35 libraries in the sample offered two choices for their library catalog interface: a discovery tool such as WorldCat Local, Primo, Encore, AquaBrowser, or Summon, as well as their classic catalog or legacy catalog; an additional library offered three choices. For some libraries the default OPAC was the discovery tool, whether presented as a link or a search box from the library webpage, with a link to the classic catalog alongside or underneath; for others, the classic catalog was the default with a link to the discovery tool. At Grand Valley State University, Summon, while technically not the library catalog, was the only search box offered from the librarys homepage and was advertised as search summon for articles, books and more (see Figure 2). The link Find books & search the classic catalog took the user to a page where Encore, then Summon, and then nally the classic III catalog was offered as a third and last choice for nding library materials[4] (see Figure 3). The other library offering Summon in our sample, the College of William and Mary, featured Try Summon, our new search tool as a prominent and central link on the library homepage and at one point in our analysis linked to experimental Summon from its Sirsi OPAC[5]. Because these OPACs were available to users simultaneously and because some discovery layers are meant to be used in conjunction with the classic catalog[6] they each were counted separately in the analysis[7]. For various reasons, data are missing from the OPACs of 40 out of the 260 academic institutions in the sample. This is about 15 percent of the institutions in the sample. Some online universities with multiple locations either required ID and password in order to use their catalogs or they provided direct access to electronic books, journals, and databases without a catalog. A few catalogs were not available due to technical difculties during the time of this study. Some small specialized colleges had no web sites and therefore their catalogs were not online (see Appendix E). As a result only 233 unique OPACs were analyzed[8]. 5. Findings/discussion 5.1 Validity of the ndings With a sample of 260 institutions more than 10 percent of the total studied population and the condence level at 95 percent, the condence interval is estimated to be ^3, as shown by the sample size calculator (Creative Research Systems, 2010). In other words, one can be 95 percent condent that the ndings discussed below are true of the total population with an error margin of plus or minus 3. For instance, if 15 percent of the academic institutions in the sample either had no online catalog or required a user ID and password to log in to use the catalog, one can be 95 percent condent that the same is true of between 12 percent and 18 percent of the academic institutions in the population. 5.2 Discussion 5.2.1 Single point of entry for all library resources. Federated search is the centerpiece of the NGC. Ideally, one search in an OPAC should retrieve journal articles from electronic databases, as well as other resources such as books and digital archives. The authentication kicks in only when a user requests a journal article or other proprietary content. Unfortunately, few of the catalogs reviewed appeared to be performing a true

A study of OPACs

273

Figure 2. GVSU Libraries homepage (accessed 12/13/2010)

LHT 29,2

274

Figure 3. GVSU Libraries Find books & search the classic catalog link (accessed 12/13/2010)

federated search according to this denition. What is largely missing from most library interfaces are digital archival items and article-level retrieval from a single point of entry. Excluding those catalogs that remained hidden behind user logins, the authors found that none of the classic OPACs in our sample included articles from databases in searches. Out of 273 user interfaces, only 9 (3 percent) provided article-level retrieval and all of them were recently released discovery tools (seven instances of WorldCat Local and two instances of Summon)[9]. WorldCat Local allows for simultaneous searching across multiple article databases, local and consortial catalogs, and of WorldCat itself (see Figure 4 for an example of WorldCats integration of articles into the results set and facets)[10]. Although the percentage of a librarys databases searchable through WorldCat and Summon is beyond the scope of this study, this consideration should certainly factor into whether any particular librarys implementation of WorldCat Local or Summon truly has the one search box that does it all[11]. Other discovery layers, such as Ex-Libris Primo or Innovative Interfaces Encore, also claim to provide for federated searching, but as Yang and Wagner (2010) note, neither of these offer true one-box searching, as each requires a separate step. With Primo, one must click a separate tab to search articles and thus cannot search the catalog and databases simultaneously (see Figure 5)[12]. In Encore, there is the ability to re-execute a search in the databases by clicking a button Search for Journal Articles. The sample yielded eight libraries using Encore as their primary catalog (as opposed to their classic catalog), none of which provided access to articles through the Encore interface[13]. One Encore library instead used Serials Solutions Summon for federated searching and directed patrons there to search for articles[14]. Of the three unique OPACs in the sample using Primo, one had not enabled article searching and another had separate tabs for searching the catalog and for searching articles[15]. Federated search is the most important but also the most difcult of all NGC features to accomplish. Aside from technical reasons, there are political complications as well. Federated search tools need connectors or computer programs to search disparate databases. Business deals have to be made and database vendors have to give consent before a connector can be developed by an OPAC vendor. This results in the different coverage of databases by different federated search tools. Likewise, an OPAC may need to search an index of keywords from electronic databases, and database vendors may or may not provide the keywords depending on contracts and business deals. This may result in limited coverage for particular OPACs and may make it difcult to search all of a librarys resources, especially articles from databases. Nevertheless, the current OPACs have made progress towards providing content. Table I shows that about 4 percent of the OPACs in the sample (1 to 7 percent in the population) included database articles in searching. About 48 percent (45 to 51 percent in real life) of the OPACs in the sample had linked journal titles to full-text content either directly or through a link resolver. About 67 percent (64 to 70 percent in real life) of the OPACs provided access to e-books from a vendor or vendors such as NetLibrary and Ebrary[16]. The 3 percent that provided all three article search, full-text journals, and e-books were exclusively either WorldCat Local or Summon. Considering the fact that not long ago the OPAC was only a citation database with bibliographical information, the presence of full text is a great achievement towards providing

A study of OPACs

275

LHT 29,2

276

Figure 4. WorldCat Local at University of Oregon Libraries (accessed 12/13/2010)

scholarly content. The missing data (15 percent) included those libraries that did not provide an OPAC or required authentication to access the OPAC. 5.2.2 State-of-the-art web interface
Its important that library interfaces compare well with other web destinations in appearance and in navigation . . . When users interact with intuitive interfaces and visually appealing sites elsewhere on the web, libraries feel challenged to offer interfaces that work just as well and look just as good (Breeding, 2007, p. 11).

A study of OPACs

277

The judgment on state-of-the-art of an OPAC is purely subjective. Nevertheless, the authors tried their best to rate the OPAC based on its look and feel into the categories poor, OK, good, and excellent (Figures 6 to 9). Poor includes visibly out-of-date and shabby-looking OPACs with minimal or clunky functionality. OK includes all of the classic OPACs that lack many modern features and a modern look, while good and excellent include more modern-looking and -acting OPACs. The following is a breakdown of the OPACs in the sample based on their rating (Table II). For the purpose of this study, the authors counted any OPACs that were rated good or excellent as displaying a state-of-the-art web interface. Those OPACs that were labeled as poor and OK were not considered a state-of-the-art web interface. Therefore, the authors conclude that 50 percent of the libraries in the sample had a state-of-the-art web interface. The following four snapshots are examples of different ratings. 5.2.3 Enriched content. Table III shows a breakdown of enriched content from the OPACs in the sample. About 46 percent of the OPACs had cover images on display. Nearly one-third of the OPACs in the sample had extended summaries, table of contents, excerpts, and reviews from commercial and external sources. About 12

Figure 5. Primo installation at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, with separate tabs for book and article searching

Yes n Journal articles Full-text journals E-books All three 10 133 185 9 % 4 48 67 3 n 223 100 48 224

No % 81 37 18 82 n

Missing % 15 15 15 15

Total n 273 273 273 273 % 100 100 100 100 Table I. Journal articles, full-text journals, and e-books in current OPACs

40 40 40 40

LHT 29,2

278

Figure 6. Example of poor

Figure 7. Example of OK

percent had tags, followed by rating/ranking at 10 percent. The least percentages included descriptions (only 3 percent) and comments (only 2 percent). Most of this enriched content was from outside sources, provided by vendors for a fee or by free Internet sources. Such cases include Syndetics and Baker & Taylors Content Cafe (fee), and Amazon and Google Books (free), which not only provide cover images but also reviews, table of contents, excerpts, and ratings/rankings. The statistics for cover images only represent those cover images that appeared in the

A study of OPACs

279

Figure 8. Example of good

Figure 9. Example of excellent

Poor n 10 % 3 n 89

OK % 32 n 83

Good % 31

Excellent n % 51 19

Missing n % 40 15

Total n 273 % 100 Table II. State-of-the-art web interface

LHT 29,2
Cover image Reviews Summary/annotation TOC Excerpts Tags Rating/ranking Descriptions Comments

Yes n 126 93 82 82 82 34 27 8 6 % 46 34 30 30 30 12 10 3 2 n 107 140 151 151 151 199 206 225 227

No % 39 51 55 55 55 73 75 82 83 n

Missing % 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Total n 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

280
Table III. Enriched content

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

OPACs. OPACs that linked to external images that did not display in the OPACs were not counted. Since summary and table of contents are standard MARC elds, the authors only counted those OPACs that had extensive summaries/annotations and table of contents from commercial or free external sources. Comments, descriptions, and rating/ranking were counted only when they were present in the OPAC itself; that is, OPACs that linked out to Google Books were not counted as yes. As shown in Table III, enriched content as input from the public was quite limited. Only 12 percent of the OPACs showed tagging and tag clouds. It is still not very common to see comments and descriptions in an OPAC. 5.2.4 Faceted navigation. With users accustomed to commercial sites and library databases offering faceted navigation, this feature is long overdue in the OPAC. Unfortunately, only about 13 percent of the user interfaces in the sample (11 to 16 percent in the population) demonstrated faceted navigation, while most (about 72 percent) did not (see Table IV). Out of the 36 OPACs with faceted navigation, 30 (about 11 percent) were discovery tools. The remaining six (about 2 percent) were classic catalogs (see Figure 10). In other words, 83 percent of interfaces with faceted navigation were discovery tools (30 out of 36). The online catalogs (those which are a part of an ILS) that provided faceted navigation were three instances of Koha, one of Auto-Graphics, and two instances of Polaris[17]. In spite of the usefulness of this feature for resource discovery, faceted navigation is not widespread in library catalogs. Vendors of classic or legacy catalogs have been surprisingly slow in implementing this feature or, as it appears, have shifted this feature to their discovery tool product. This study shows that there is no consistent set of facets across systems. This feature is apparently highly customizable, and libraries may decide the names and which facets they prefer based on their local needs. Some libraries are very creative in naming their facets, as seen in the following list, which displays some of the most frequently used facets (Yang and Wagner, 2010):

Yes n Table IV. Faceted navigation Total 36 % 13 n 197

No % 72 n 40

Missing % 15 n 273

Total % 100

A study of OPACs

281

Figure 10. Interfaces with/without faceted navigation

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

(17) (18)

Access/library/location/collection. Author/creator. Availability/available. Call number/classication/LCC/Dewey range. Content/content type. Format/type/material type/resource type/form/genre. Journal title. Keywords. Language. Organization as (author)/provider/corporate author. Publication year/publication date/published date/publish date/creation date/decades. Publisher. Region/geographic/continent/place. Series title. Source. Tag: . By tag-genre. . By tag-tone. . By tag-theme. Target audience. Topic/subject/subject term.

5.2.5 Simple keyword box with a link to advanced search on every page. Table V shows the distribution of the search box in the OPACs in the sample. The desired NGC feature

LHT 29,2

282

is a simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page of the OPAC. Such a simple keyword search box is also called quick search. The intent is to imitate the popular internet sites such as Google or Amazon; the idea is that patrons may nd such a simple keyword search box more welcoming. Only 26 OPACs demonstrated this feature and match the denition. The rest of the OPACs either started with a simple keyword search box and dropped it during further navigation, or they started with a basic or advanced search with pull-down options. Aware of the trend and desire for the next generation catalog, some vendors provide the simple keyword search box at the start page and maintain its presence on every page of the OPAC. For instance, the latest release of Voyager ILS 7 by Ex Libris starts its OPAC module with quick search, which stays on the top of the OPAC on every page. In spite of all the discussion about this NGC feature, it appears that most academic librarians do not appreciate such a change, even when it is offered out of the box by vendors. Most Voyager libraries have chosen to do away with the simple keyword search box and start their OPACs instead with either the basic or advanced search. A simple keyword search box is not considered practical, as it does not bring precision in search results; therefore, this NGC feature cannot be implemented to the letter. However, maintaining a search box on every page seems to have gained ground. With a 95 percent condence level and a condence interval at ^ 3, it is safe to extrapolate to the whole population that only about 6 to 12 percent of academic library OPACs have truly implemented this NGC feature. A simple search box in OPACs is simply not popular, especially in those OPACs without faceted navigation to further rene a keyword search. 5.2.6 Relevancy. This study did not evaluate the internal mechanism of relevancy in a conventional library sense. Rather the authors reviewed OPACs to see if any academic libraries have incorporated their circulation statistics into ranking the search results. So far, it appears not a single library has done this, nor do any systems demonstrate such capability. 5.2.7 Did you mean . . .? Table VI indicates that one-third of the OPACs in the sample (33 percent) were equipped with a spell checker. When a user has a typo in a search, the OPAC provides the correct spelling in the form of did you mean . . .? The correct word generally is a link that will lead users to the right search. About 52

Categories Table V. A simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page A simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page Other options Missing data Total

Catalogs 26 207 40 273

Percentile 9 76 15 100

Yes n Table VI. Did you mean . . .? Did you mean . . .? 92 % 33 n 111

No % 41 n

Other % 11

Missing n % 40 15

Total n 273 % 100

30

percent of the OPACs did not provide this service in spite of the visible benets to users. However, about 11 percent of the libraries (8 to 14 percent in real life) provided some form of assistance for incorrect spellings, supplying wording to explain the systems display of a list of titles or headings to browse when a term is not found. The OPACs labeled other in Table VI have used the following to assist users in place of a spell checker: . Item not found perhaps the following list will help. . Keyword not found. The closest subject match appears below . . . . No matches found; nearby titles are . . . . No matches on your keyword search, see closest entries: . Select the closest match or start a new search. . Suggested spelling [a button to click]. . You may change your search, or select a new search from the closest matches below . . . With a 95 percent condence level, one can conclude that 30 to 36 percent of the academic libraries in the studied population provide a spell-checking feature in their OPACs. Considering how much of a service this would be to an undergraduate population accustomed to this feature on sites like Google and Amazon, it is disappointing that still more than half of the OPACs (49 to 55 percent in the population) do not have this feature. 5.2.8 Recommendations/related materials. Ideally, an OPAC should recommend materials to readers by making a statement such as patrons who borrowed item A have also borrowed item B (Table VII). As far as the authors could ascertain, no library OPAC was able to supply recommendations based on patron transaction records according to the Amazon model. However, libraries have attempted to emulate this model by using patron-friendly language in renaming and making explicit the already existing functionalities of hyperlinked name and subject headings and call number browses to nd similar items. They have done this by either creating a hyperlink or a button that performs a new browse or search based on author, subject, or call number range. Instead of the user needing to click on individual hyperlinks for author or subject in separate searches, these searches may also be combined in one results set. About 34 percent of the OPACs in the sample had some form of recommendation language, while 51 percent did not. When applied to the whole population, one can conclude with 95 percent condence that 30 to 36 percent of OPACs attempt the spirit of this feature. While most commercial sites use the expression customers who bought item A also bought item B, libraries cannot yet say the analogous patrons who borrowed item A also borrowed item B. Most recommendation language found in

A study of OPACs

283

Yes n Some kind of recommendations/ related materials 93 % 34 n 140

No % 51

Missing n % 40 15

Total n 273 % 100 Table VII. Recommendations/ related materials

LHT 29,2

284

academic libraries focuses on the items similarity. OPACs in this study used the following expressions to recommend materials to patrons: . Browse similar items. . Find more about this author, topic . . . . Find more by this author or on the subject. . More like this [a button]. . Nearby items on the shelf. . People who looked for this may want these recent additions [list of recent additions]. . Search for related sources [a button]. . Show similar. . Show similar items [a button]. . Similar books [a button]. . Similar records [a button]. . Similar works. . Try these too [list of subjects to click on]. 5.2.9 User contribution. Only OPACs or discovery tools that allowed users to contribute were counted (as opposed to libraries that employed LibraryThing or another service to supply user tagging or reviews). As shown in Table VIII, user contributions were limited to rating/ranking, tags, reviews, and comments. None of the OPACs in the sample allowed users to add summaries, annotations, or descriptions in bibliographical data. Tags and tag clouds may be the most common user-added contributions among the libraries. About 11 percent of the OPACs allowed users to add tags, which amounts to about 8 to 14 percent in the population. About 4 percent of the OPACs allowed users to add rating/ranking, and 7 percent of the OPACs welcomed users to add reviews. While there is evidence that some OPACs had the capability for receiving and displaying user input, libraries chose not to enable this feature. Why is there a lack of user input in OPACs? One reason may be the concern of catalogers about the quality of bibliographical data and the appropriateness of user input. For example, McCormack (2008) raises both philosophical and legal issues about all types of user contributions specically relevant to academic libraries, while Spiteri (2007) details the deviations of user tagging from NISO standards and recommends that
Yes n Tags Reviews Rating/ranking Comments Descriptions Summary/annotation 30 18 11 3 0 0 % 11 7 4 1 0 0 n 203 215 222 230 233 233 No % 74 78 81 84 85 85 n Missing % 15 15 15 15 15 15 Total n 273 273 273 273 273 273 % 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table VIII. User contribution

40 40 40 40 40 40

libraries provide guidelines for tagging in OPACs. While there are many articles about the benets and drawbacks of social tagging or folksonomies, there are few empirical studies on the effectiveness of tagging on retrieval or on the validity of the assumption that social taggers tag better than experts when it comes to anticipating actual searchers terms (Funer, 2008). Perhaps librarians are waiting for such evaluations. There also appear to be no studies of how libraries who have implemented tagging or other forms of user input are managing these contributions, such as policing for spam and reviewing for offensive language or relevance. Nor is there yet any data about the number of users who avail themselves of the opportunity to contribute. The authors saw few instances of reviews and tagging in the results of their admittedly limited searches in the samples catalogs. A low contribution rate is to be expected in a relatively new feature and, of course, depends on the use of the librarys OPAC. Yet, the question remains as to whether users will bother to contribute to the library catalog as they do to commercial sites like Amazon or iTunes. Another consideration is whether individual libraries [will] be able to generate the mass of tags to compare with the critical mass of user-generated metadata from social tagging sites, such as LibraryThing, to which libraries can subscribe instead (Mendez et al., 2009). The only imaginable contender would be WorldCat, where anyone in the world can create an account to tag and review items. One might also ask whether it would be overkill for one OPAC to have each of these categories available for user input. Would users differentiate and leave feedback under the appropriate category, i.e. entering a review under reviews, a synopsis under summary, and other feedback under comments? Perhaps the lack of current options for summaries/annotations and descriptions is because the category of reviews is meant to encompass all user feedback. 5.2.10 RSS feeds, persistent links, and integration with social networking sites. Table IX shows the percentage of OPACs that have RSS feeds, persistent links, and social networking sites integrated. About 3 percent of the libraries in the sample provided RSS feeds. One can infer that up to 6 percent of the OPACs of the population thus have RSS feeds. About 23 percent of the OPACs provided persistent links in bib records. About 8 percent of the OPACs can push and share their bibliographical records to social networking sites. Most library catalogs failed to provide these features to their users. Considering the fact that these features are useful additions to an OPAC and are also part of the NGC, those statistics are not very satisfactory. 5.3 Summary data Table X is the total tabulation of how many NGC features each OPAC in the sample displayed. For instance, 44 OPACs (about 16 percent) did not have any of the advanced
Yes n Persistent link Integration with social networking sites RSS feed 63 21 9 % 23 8 3 n 170 212 224 No % 62 77 82 Missing n % 40 40 40 15 15 15 Total n 273 273 273 % 100 100 100

A study of OPACs

285

Table IX. RSS feeds, persistent links, and integration with social networking sites

LHT 29,2

Number of NGC features 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Missing Total

Number of OPACs 44 54 48 35 15 14 15 1 3 3 1 0 0 40 273

Percentage 16 20 18 13 5 5 5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 0 15 100

Cumulative percentage 16.0 36.0 54.0 67.0 72.0 77.0 82.0 82.5 83.5 84.5 85.0 85.0 85.0 100.0

286

Table X. Distribution of NGC features

features of the NGC, and none of the OPACs displayed more than ten out of the twelve features of the NGC. Only one interface (about 0.5 percent) reached the highest status of having ten NGC features. Most OPACs fell between 1 to 6 features. Those that possessed seven or more NGC features were exclusively discovery tools, with WorldCat Local and Summon being the top runners. These two discovery tools were the only ones that provided article-level searching in the sample. The classic or legacy OPACs are visibly at the bottom of the scale of one to twelve NGC features. One reason why none of the current OPACs possessed all of the features is that two out of the 12 features for the NGC were not available in any of the OPACs in the sample. Those two features are relevancy based on circulation statistics and recommendations based on patron transactions. Most crucially, federated searching was missing in most OPACs (73 percent). Without a federated search, the catalog is missing its centerpiece. Unless libraries and vendors are united in their effort to make this happen, there will not be a true next generation catalog. Technologically this can be accomplished, but it will take more than technology to achieve the success level where libraries are able to serve patrons with one point of entry for all library resources. Is the next generation catalog becoming the current catalog? The answer is both positive and negative. The ndings from this study show that library catalogs have made great progress towards becoming the NGC but have not reached the ideal. More full text and more enriched content than ever before exist in current OPACs, but the majority of academic OPACs still miss article-level retrieval from electronic databases and digital collections. About 16 percent of OPACs still demonstrate no advanced features. Even the best user interfaces have only achieved ten out of the twelve features of the NGC. In fact, those that have demonstrated more than seven NGC features are all exclusively discovery tools. It seems that academic libraries in the US and Canada have a long way to go before OPACs become the true next generation catalog.

6. Limitations The rst limitation may be human subjectivity. For example, assigning interfaces to one of four categories in the criterion state-of-the-art web interface largely involved subjective judgment by two authors, who may have slightly differed. Also the data in the sample were not complete. Some of the small religious colleges did not have web sites and therefore did not have an online catalog. Some online universities and universities with multiple locations often did not provide their library resources through traditional catalogs; they bypassed the catalog and connected directly to databases and e-books. Some had catalogs but required users to log in. The characteristics of these hidden catalogs were thus unknowable. Therefore, the missing data may present errors in the accuracy of the ndings. Another limitation is the rate of change of libraries adopting new technology. Libraries may have since changed OPAC interfaces, switching over to or adding a discovery tool after the authors initial or revised data collection. As this article was nalized, the authors updated any data they found a need to double-check, but it was impractical to recheck all 260 libraries in the sample. 7. Conclusion The current catalogs of academic libraries in the US and Canada have made great progress in modernizing themselves in pursuit of the NGC ideal but have quite a distance to go before they reach that goal. At most, the current catalogs are in the process of becoming next generation catalogs, but they are not next generation catalogs yet. Considering the fact that only 3 percent of the OPACs in the sample demonstrated seven or more of the twelve features for the NGC, the status quo is not very satisfactory. So far the NGC features displayed by the majority of our sample classic catalogs are cosmetic and minor. None of them should be considered revolutionary, involving drastic paradigm changes. The majority of academic library catalogs displaying the most NGC features are more commonly referred to as discovery tools and discovery layers and included WorldCat, Summon, Primo, Encore, AquaBrowser, and Endeca. Are proprietary vendors abandoning updating their classic catalogs in favor of discovery tools? Are discovery layers becoming the next generation catalog? The results of this study seem to suggest this to be the case. Yet the question remains as to what the implications are for the next generation catalog when the classic catalog is still necessary (and is thus available alongside the NGC) for advanced searching and traditional subject heading and name browsing. Next generation OPACs may possess a lot of new features, but they may lack traditional ones, such as name/title browsing for music, that librarians and advanced users want or need. The essential piece of the next generation catalog is a comprehensive federated search, which is still missing. Only when library catalogs can provide true one point of entry and one-stop searching can they claim to be next generation. While technically the profession is getting closer to this goal, it is still a revolutionary step to accomplish, being very difcult politically and economically.
Notes 1. A particular librarys OPAC vendor and system does not necessarily predetermine the number of NGC features available. Certain NGC characteristics, such as those included under

A study of OPACs

287

LHT 29,2

enriched content or the availability of e-books in the OPAC, may not be system-determined features for a library but a matter of that librarys budget or collection development decisions. This is but one reason the authors did not present a tally of NGC features by vendor or system. For a comparison of NGC features among discovery tools, see Yang and Wagner (2010). 2. CARLI offers VuFind/Voyager; CLICnet offers Encore/WebPac Pro; Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) offers AquaBrowser/Voyager. BobCat Libraries (NY) use Primo/Aleph. 3. Beyond an identical appearance, an OPAC was determined to be consortial if the base part of the URL was identical among all the libraries. For example, all of the CARLI libraries OPACs begin either http://vund.carli.illinois.edu/ or https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu, with the next segment of the URL determining whether a specic library is being searched or all of the I-Share libraries. Not all of the I-Share libraries default to the same interface: some default to the new VuFind interface, while other default to the Voyager OPAC. While customization is available for individual libraries (www.carli.illinois.edu/), they are supercial only and do not affect the NGC features discussed here. For example, some I-Share libraries choose to have a link to the classic Voyager OPAC from within the VuFind interface, while the consortial I-Share VuFind interface itself does not. 4. www.gvsu.edu/library/ 5. http://swem.wm.edu/ 6. For example, the Encore interface is for keyword searching only; if users want to do an advanced search (e.g. any search other than a keyword search), they are sent to the classic catalog. Otherwise, bibliographic data is pulled from the underlying catalog and is also, in the case of Primo and some Encore libraries, displayed in a new window with data and format from the underlying catalog. Southwestern Assemblies of God University, which uses AquaBrowser, offers two choices for their catalog: classic research sends users to its TLC OPAC; relational research sends them to the AquaBrowser interface. 7. The University of Bridgeport (CT) offers two catalogs, both Primo and Voyager, but Primo is only accessible through patron authentication. The Voyager OPAC is presented as the guest catalog. Since the authors could not access this instance of a Primo interface, only the Voyager OPAC was analyzed in the ndings. 8. 260 (institutions in sample) 12 (consortial removed) 25 catalogs (23 institutions use 2 catalogs; 1 uses 3) 273 potential OPACs 40 missing 233 actual catalogs analyzed. 9. At the time of the data collection, seven libraries in the sample were using WorldCat Local as their main catalog. Six of these also offered their classic catalog for searching as well: University of Oregon, University of Portland, Lineld College (OR); SUNY Oneonta; University of Connecticut; and Brevard College (NC). West Virginia Wesleyan College offered only WorldCat Local. 10. http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ 11. WorldCat Local tag line found at: www.oclc.org/worldcatlocal/default.htm, accessed 3 June 2010. 12. www.d.umn.edu/lib/ 13. Bethel University (MN), California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CA), Colgate University (NY), Columbia College (MO), Florida Memorial University (FL), Grand Valley State University (MI), Northwestern College (MN), Wright State University (OH). 14. Grand Valley State University.

288

15. The BobCat catalog shared by the New York School of Interior Design and Parsons, the New School for Design, and the OPAC of University of Minnesota Duluth Library, respectively. The third OPAC is the University of Bridgeport (CT), which uses Primo as its main catalog, Eureka. However, Eureka requires a login for access, so the authors could not view its conguration. See note 4 above. 16. Since libraries provide catalog access to e-books through MARC records, the inclusion of e-books in the OPAC is less a technical consideration or vendor/system limitation and more of a question of budget, stafng, and collection development. Note that this study did not differentiate between those libraries that only provided access to e-books outside of the library catalog and those that did not purchase or subscribe to any e-books. The authors merely searched for the presence of e-books in the OPAC. 17. While there were two instances of Evergreen catalogs in our sample, Evergreen only appears to have faceted navigation. Clicking on facets in Evergreen executes a new search and does not narrow the current search (Yang and Hofmann, 2010).

A study of OPACs

289

References Antelman, K., Lynema, E. and Pace, A.K. (2006), Toward a twenty-rst century library catalog, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 128-39. Breeding, M. (2007), Introduction, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5-14. Creative Research Systems (2010), Sample size calculator, available at: www.surveysystem. com/sscalc.htm (accessed 20 April 2010). Funer, J. (2008), User tagging of library resources: toward a framework for system evaluation, International Cataloging and Bibliographic Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 47-51. Haahr, M. (2010), Random.org: random integer generation, available at: www.random.org/ integers/ (accessed 12 October 2009). Kudo, E. and Kataoka, S. (2008), A big wave of next generation catalog its features and implementing into Japanese library systems, Joho Kanri, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 480-98. Luong, T.D. and Liew, C.L. (2009), The evaluation of New Zealand academic library OPACs: a checklist approach, Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 376-93. McCormack, N. (2008), User comments and reviews: decline or democratization of the online public access catalogue?, Feliciter, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 129-31. Mendez, L.H., Quinonez-Skinner, J. and Skaggs, D. (2009), Subjecting the catalog to tagging, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 30-41. Mercun, T. and Zumer, M. (2008), New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library catalogues, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243-61. Murray, P. (2008), Discovery tools and the OPAC, PowerPoint Presentation at NISO Forum on Next Generation Discovery Tools: New Tools, Aging Standards, available at: http://dltj.org/ article/discovery-layer-video-tour/ (accessed 27 January 2010). Petersons (2009), Petersons Four-Year Colleges, Petersons, Lawrenceville, NJ. Spiteri, L.F. (2007), The structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-25. Tennant, R. (2005), Digital libraries: lipstick on a pig, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, p. 34.

LHT 29,2

Tennant, R. (2007), Digital libraries: lipstick on a pig 2.0, available at: http://blog. libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2007/05/04/lipstick-on-a-pig-2-0/ (accessed 3 June 2010). Trommer, D. (1997), Open market goes live with next-generation catalog solution, Electronic Buyers News, No. 1075, p. 90.

290

Yang, S.Q. and Hofmann, M.A. (2010), The next generation library catalog: a comparative study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 141-50. Yang, S.Q. and Wagner, K. (2010), Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards the next generation catalog?, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 690-709. Appendix 1. The sample . 16 Alberta College of Art & Design (AB, Canada). . 28 Alliant International University (CA). . 30 Alma College (MI). . 48 American Public University System (WV). . 57 American University of Puerto Rico (PR). . 76 Appalachian State University (NC). . 91 Argosy University, San Francisco Bay Area (CA). . 153 Atlantic Union College (MA). . 186 Baptist Bible College (MO). . 192 Barclay College (KS). . 193 Bard College (NY). . 202 Baylor University (TX). . 221 Benedictine College (KS). . 222 Benedictine University (IL). . 239 Beth Benjamin Academy of Connecticut (CT). . 238 Bethany University (CA). . 240 Bethel College (IN). . 243 Bethel University (MN). . 255 Black Hill State University (SD). . 259 Blueeld College (VA). . 260 Blueeld State College (WV). . 269 Boston College (MA). . 281 Brevard College (NC). . 296 Brown College (MN). . 309 Brown Mackie College-Merrillville (IN). . 321 Cabrini College (PA). . 325 California Coast University (CA). . 336 California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CA). . 341 California State University, East Bay (CA).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

354 363 374 375 378 397 403 404 430 427 434 440 448 461 466 487 463 505 508 509 511 521 534 541 545 548 594 645 656 661 689 683 693 705 706 711 722 726 734 747

Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary (MO). Capella University (MN). Carolina Christian College (NC). Carroll College (MT). Carthage College (WI). Central Michigan University (MI). Chadron State College (NE). Chamberlain College of Nursing (MO). City College of the City University of New York (NY). City College, Fort Lauderdale (FL). Clarion University of Pennsylvania (PA). Clayton State University (GA). Cleveland Institute of Music (OH). Colgate University (NY). College Dominicain de Philosophie et de Theologie (ON, Canada). College of State Island of the City University of New York (NY). CollegeAmerica Denver (CO). Colorado Technical University North Kansas City (MO). Columbia Bible College (BC, Canada). Columbia College (MO). Columbia College (SC). Columbus College of Art & Design (OH). Concordia University, St. Paul (MN). Converse College (SC). Corcoran College of Art and Design (DC). Cornerstone University (MI). DePauw University (IN). DeVry University (TN). Dickinson College (PA). Dixie State College of Utah (UT). East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania (PA). Eastern Michigan University (MI). Eckerd College (FL). Elmhurst College (IL). Elmira College (NY). Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide (FL). Emporia State University (KS). Eureka College (IL). Everest University, Orlando (FL). Fairmont State University (WV).

A study of OPACs

291

LHT 29,2

. . . . .

292

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

750 Fashion Institute of Technology (NY). 753 Felician College (NJ). 762 Flagler College (FL). 764 Florida Atlantic University (FL). 767 Florida Gulf Coast University (FL). 771 Florida Memorial University (FL). 775 Fordham University (NY). 786 Franklin Pierce University (NH). 795 Furman University (SC). 797 Gallaudet University (DC). 803 George Meany Center for Labor Studies-The National Labor College (MD). 824 Gonzaga University (WA). 835 Grand Valley State University (MI). 847 Grove City College (PA). 876 Hellenic College (MA). 884 Herzing College (GA). 888 Hesser College (NH). 891 High-Tech Institute (AZ). 896 Hobart and William Smith Colleges (NY). 907 Hope College (MI). 928 Illinois Institute of Technology (IL). 946 Institute of Public Administration (Ireland). 949 Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Chihuahua (Meico). 989 International Institute of the Americas, Tucson (AZ). 1041 ITT Technical Institute (OR). 1060 James Madison University (VA). 1062 Jarvis Christian College (TX). 1065 John Cabot University (Italy). 1082 Judson University (IL). 1084 Juniata College (PA). 1088 Kansas Wesleyan University (KS). 1097 Keiser University, Fort Lauderdale (FL). 1098 Kendall College (IL). 1099 Kennesaw State University (GA). 1104 Kent State University, Stark Campus (OH). 1108 Kentucky Mountain Bible College (KY). 1111 Kenyon College (OH). 1115 Keystone College (PA). 1125 Kwantlen University College (BC, Canada).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1131 1155 1158 1159 1170 1171 1179 1190 1200 1208 1220 1234 1239 1254 1261 1265 1275 1286 1292 1295 1303 1318 1335 1336 1343 1369 1370 1383 1388 1410 1423 1432 1438 1456 1468 1470 1487 1495 1490 1513

Lake Erie College (OH). Lehigh University (PA). LeMoyne-Owen College (TN). Lenoir-Rhyne College (NC). Limestone College (SC). Lincoln Christian College (IL) (now Lincoln Christian University). Lineld College (OR). Loras College (IA). Louisiana College (LA). Loyola College in Maryland (MD). Lyon College (AR). Manhattan Christian College (KS). Manseld University of Pennsylvania (PA). Marygrove College (MI). Marywood University (PA). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA). McNally Smith College of Music (MN). Menlo College (CA). Meredith College (NC). Mesivta of Eastern Parkway Rabbinical Seminary (NY). Metropolitan State College of Denver (CO). Middle Tennessee State University (TN). Minneapolis College of Art and Design (MN). Minnesota School of Business - Brooklyn Center (MN). Minnesota State University Moorhead (MN). Montreat College, Montreat (NC). Montserrat College of Art (MA). Mount Angel Seminary (OR). Mount Mary College (WI). National American University, Rapid City (SD). Ner Israel Rabbinical College (MD). New Englan Conservatory of Music (MA). New Hampshire Institute of Art (NH). New York School of Interior Design (NY). North Carolina Wesleyan College (NC). Northcentral University (AZ). Northwest Christian College (OR). Northwest Missouri State University (MO). Northwestern College (MN). Occidental College (CA).

A study of OPACs

293

LHT 29,2

. . . . .

294

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1531 1538 1548 1570 1574 1587 1597 1603 1610 1619 1629 1630 1634 1637 1641 1647 1676 1695 1707 1715 1722 1729 1732 1816 1821 1842 1845 1855 1894 1862 1886 1887 1899 1911 1751 1755 1769 1783 1923 1931

Ohio Wesleyan University (OH). Oklahoma City University (OK). Oregon Health & Science University (OR). Palm Beach Atlantic University (FL). Parsons The New School for Design (NY). Penn State Delaware County (PA). Penn State Schuylkill (PA). Pennsylvania College of Art & Design (PA). Philander Smith College (AR). Pittsburg State University (KS). Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico (PR). Polytechnic University of the Americas-Miami Campus (FL). Pontical College Josephinum (OH). Potomac College (DC). Presbyterian College (SC). Providence College and Theological Seminary (MB, Canada). Redeemer University College (ON, Canada). Rhodes College (TN). Robert Morris University (PA). Rocky Mountain College (AB, Canada). Rosemont College (PA). Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Camden (NJ). Ryerson University (ON, Canada). Schiller International University (Germany). School of the Art Institute of Chicago (IL). Sierra Nevada College (NV). Simmons College (MA). Somerset Christian College (NJ). South University, West Palm Beach (FL). Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (NC). Southern University at New Orleans (LA). Southern Utah University (UT). Southwestern Assemblies of God University (TX). Spring Arbor University (MI). St. Gregorys University, Shawnee (OK). St. Johns College (NM). St. Louis College of Pharmacy (MO). St. Olaf College (MN). State University of New York College at Oneonta (NY). State University of New York Downstate Medical Center (NY).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1936 Steinbach Bible College (MB, Canada). 1946 Stonehill College (MA). 1950 Suffolk University (MA). 1964 Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia (PA). 1967 Taylor University (IN). 1970 Teikyo Loretto Heights University (CO). 1978 Tennessee Wesleyan College (TN). 53 The American University in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). 118 The Art Institute of California Sacramento (CA). 135 The Art Institute of Portland (OR). 454 The Colburn School Conservatory of Music (CA). 475 The College of New Rochelle (NY). 483 The College of Saint Rose (NY). 494 The College of William and Mary (VA). 499 The Colorado College (CO). 1117 The Kings College (NY). 1697 The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey (NJ). 2122 The University of Findlay (OH). 2204 The University of North Carlina at Chapel Hill (NC). 2330 The University of Texas at Brownsville (TX). 2331 The University of Texas at Dallas (TX). 2009 Touro College (NY). 2014 Trinity Baptist College (FL). 2018 Trinity College of Florida (FL). 2021 Trinity International University (IL). 2028 Tri-State University (IN). 2034 Tulane University (LA). 2040 Union College (NY). 2045 United States International University (Kenya). 2058 Universidad FLET (FL). 2175 University of Minnesota, Duluth (MN). 2090 University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (AR). 2092 University of Bridgeport (CT). 2100 University of California, Riverside (CA). 2112 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (CO). 2114 University of Connecticut (CT). 2129 University of Hawaii at Hilo (HI). 2133 University of Houston-Clear Lake (TX). 2149 University of Louisville (KY). 2162 University of Maryland Eastern Shore (MD).

A study of OPACs

295

LHT 29,2

. . . . .

296

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2163 2178 2220 2258 2281 2280 2284 2296 2323 2342 2343 2349 2381 2365 2380 2395 2399 2427 2455 2481 2484 2485 2461 2486 2502 2518 2539 2545 2548 2554 2556 2560

University of Maryland University College (MD). University of Mississippi (MS). University of Oregon (OR). University of Phoenix (AZ). University of Portland (OR). University of Prince Edward Island (PE, Canada). University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo (PR). University of Regina (SK, Canada). University of South Florida (FL). University of the Cumberlands (KY). University of the District of Columbia (DC). University of the Virgin Islands (VI). University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (WI). University of West Florida (FL). University of Wisconsin-Superior (WI). Vanderbilt University (TN). Vassar College (NY). Walsh University (OH). West Chester University of Pennsylvania (PA). West Virginia State University (WV). West Virginia University Institute of Technology (WV). West Virginia Wesleyan College (WV). Western Christian College (MB, Canada). Westwood College-Anaheim (CA). Wheeling Jesuit University (WV). William Paterson University of New Jersey (NJ). Wright State University (OH). Yeshiva Beth Moshe (PA). Yeshiva DMonsey Rabbinical College (NY). Yeshiva of the Telshe Alumni (NY). Yeshiva Shaarei Torah of Rockland (NY). Yeshivath Zichron Moshe (NY).

Appendix 2

A study of OPACs
n % 0 1 5 17 28 1 1 2 14 3 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 3 14 3 100

ILS OPACs Autographics * Evergreen Ex Libris: Aleph Ex Libris: Voyager Innovative Koha * Polaris * Sagebrush Sirsi/Dynix TLC Winnebago Discovery tools/layers * AquaBrowser Encore (Innovative) Endeca Primo (Ex Libris) Summon VuFind WorldCat Local Missing Other Total Note: *Offers faceted navigation

1 2 13 46 76 3 2 5 38 8 1 4 8 5 3 2 1 7 40 8 273

297

Table AI. OPACs by vendor

Appendix 3. Data collection form Sample# Institution name URL OPAC vendor/name Keyword search box With link to advanced Box on every screen Enriched content Cover art images Summary/annotations TOC Reviews Comments User Descriptions

LHT 29,2

298

Ratings/Rankings Tags Excerpts Faceted navigation Relevancy Did you mean?/spell correction Recommendations/related materials User contributions Ratings Tags Descriptions Reviews Summaries/annotations Comments RSS State of the art user interface OK Good Excellent Persistent link Integration with social network sites Other features Single point of entry for all library information Articles Journal full text Archives Articles by Link Resolver Other digital collections Type of college Program Associate Undergraduate Master PHD Notes

Appendix 4.

A study of OPACs
OPAC(s) Same as

Sample # Institution name 404 1574 797 1490 1098 1821 222 705 928 1082 1171 2021

Chamberlain College of Nursing Voyager DeVry University (TN) (MO) 645 Parsons The New School for Primo/Aleph New York School of Interior Design (NY) 1456 Design (NY) Gallaudet University (DC) AquaBrowser/ University of the District of Voyager 2343 Columbia (DC) Northwestern College (MN) Encore/WebPac Bethel University (MN) Pro 243 Kendall College (IL) VuFind/Voyager 726 Eureka College (IL) School of the Art Institute of VuFind/Voyager Eureka College (IL) Chicago (IL) 726 Benedictine University (IL) VuFind/Voyager 726 Eureka College (IL) Elmhurst College (IL) VuFind/Voyager 726 Eureka College (IL) Illinois Institute of Technology VuFind/Voyager Eureka College (IL) (IL) 726 Judson University (IL) VuFind/Voyager 726 Eureka College (IL) Lincoln Christian University (IL) VuFind/Voyager 726 Eureka College (IL) Trinity International University VuFind/Voyager Eureka College (IL) (IL) 726

299

Table AII. Institutions in sample using the same consortial catalog

Appendix 5. Missing data . 363 Capella University (MN). . 989 International Institute of the Americas, Tucson (AZ). . 2258 University of Phoenix (AZ). . 1816 Schiller International University (Germany). . 891 High-Tech Institute (AZ). . 296 Brown College (MN). . 1336 Minnesota School of Business-Brooklyn Center (MN). . 1630 Polytechnic University of the Americas-Miami Campus (FL). . 2545 Yeshiva Beth Moshe (PA). . 239 Beth Benjamin Academy of Connecticut (CT). . 1108 Kentucky Mountain Bible College (KY). . 2045 United States International University (Kenya). . 2018 Trinity College of Florida (FL). . 2560 Yeshivath Zichron Moshe (NY). . 1041 ITT Technical Institute (OR). . 325 California Coast University (CA). . 1423 Ner Israel Rabbinical College (MD). . 1295 Mesivta of Eastern Parkway Rabbinical Seminary (NY).

LHT 29,2

. . . . .

300

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1894 South University, West Palm Beach (FL). 2058 Universidad FLET (FL). 505 Colorado Technical University-North Kansas City (MO). 1410 National American University, Rapid City (SD). 463 CollegeAmerica Denver (CO). 374 Carolina Christian College (NC). 2556 Yeshiva Shaarei Torah of Rockland (NY). 1637 Potomac College (DC). 135 The Art Institute of Portland (OR). 2554 Yeshiva of the Telshe Alumni (NY). 734 Everest University, Orlando (FL). 2486 Westwood College-Anaheim (CA). 427 City College, Fort Lauderdale (FL). 454 The Colburn School Conservatory of Music (CA). 1610 Philander Smith College (AR). 888 Hesser College (NH). 48 American Public University System (WV). 2461 Western Christian College (MB, Canada). 309 Brown Mackie College-Merrillville (IN). 2548 Yeshiva DMonsey Rabbinical College (NY). 1964 Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia (PA). 1470 Northcentral University (AZ).

About the authors Sharon Q. Yang has been working in the library automation eld for 18 years. She received her Masters degree in Science in 1988, Certicate for Advanced Librarianship in 1989, and Doctor of Library Science in 1997, all from the School of Library Service, Columbia University in New York City. While working on her doctoral degree, she started working at Wagner College as Head of Technical Services/Systems in 1990. She acquired her computer knowledge through experience at work and by taking college classes and attending workshops in computer science. Now she works as Systems Librarian and Associate Professor with Tenure in Rider University Library, New Jersey. Sharon Q. Yang is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: yangs@rider.edu Melissa Hofmann started working in Rider University in 2009 as Bibliographical Control Librarian. She earned her MA in library and information science from Rutgers University and MA in English Literature from College of New Jersey. Her major responsibilities include cataloging, teaching in information literacy program, and reference. She has been playing an active part in library automation, policy making, and OPAC display and information retrieval.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints