Adaptación a las exigencias del mercado y a las condiciones del entorno

It was clear from both the observational data and feedback gained from the discussion groups that most participants found Discover easy to use, reaffirming the findings from the survey with many citing the intuitive nature and familiar feel of the interface. However, there were a number of negative comments received in the survey relating to difficulties using the interface (interestingly most of these came from respondents who had also advised in an earlier question that they found Discover easy to use).

There was also several negative survey comments regarding difficulties using the limiters, however, both the observational data and group discussions show that for the most part the participants found them easy to engage with although to not quite perhaps the same breadth cited by the survey population. Furthermore, EBSCO’s own online usability tests had clearly shown that even those who clearly hadn’t used specific limiters before were able to very quickly figure out how to do so when asked - further testament to the intuitive nature of the interface.

The Autocomplete and Research Starter proved to be particularly popular features amongst the participants, both of which are designed to mirror the more valued aspects of other open web resources such as Google and Wikipedia (Lawrence, 2015). However, Research Starter was sometimes slow to load, often appearing a couple of seconds after the search results and leading some to miss it altogether.

Throughout the tasks, the observational data also revealed that none of the features in the third column of the results page received any use at all, with one participant in particular explicitly stating that they wouldn’t use the QR code, didn’t have an app for it and wouldn’t download one specifically for this.

Use of the detailed record also emerged as another key feature for most of the participants, with many appearing to be systematically using this as the preferred means of both evaluating and accessing found items. It was also clear that most of the additional features and tools available within were not well used or even understood. This was the case with most of the options to save search results and found items. For example, few appeared to be aware of the Folder option or its actual purpose. A number of students appeared enthusiastic about the feature once explained, however, any initial appeal quickly dissipated when advised of the need to create and remember a separate username and password. Both the observational notes and group discussions revealed that for the most part the participants were instead replicating this functionality in more protracted ways, for example by making written notes or copying citations directly into word documents. Given the confusion surrounding these features and the limited use made of them, it was also interesting to see use being made of the Bookmark to Reading Lists@Liverpool link as an alternative means of saving found content. Here, once authenticated by their usual credentials they were able to save items into the My Bookmarks section within their ReadingLists@Liverpool account. This captured not only the bibliographic data but also a link to the full text for online resources or the class mark and availability of physical items by way of the catalogue record.

Jeff Woods Collections, Content and Discovery, University of Liverpool Library, 2015 41 This certainly seems to offer plenty of potential for ReadingLists@Liverpool to provide a convenient means of consolidating recommended and discovered content by both academics (to populate reading lists) and students (to bookmark additional, found content) into a single, centralised location. Furthermore, promoting it in this way would only serve to reaffirm the value of

ReadingLists@Liverpool whilst providing additional incentive for academics and students to engage with it.

The test sessions revealed a number of usability issues with Discover. Some of these were relatively isolated incidents, resulting from a specific chain of events and experienced by few participants, for example the issue with ‘hidden’ limiters applying highlighted earlier in the report. Others were more common, for example the Advanced search feature was viewed as being too complicated by most of the participants who sought to use it during the sessions with several comments from the survey also evidencing this. Again, this appeared to be contrary to the popularity of this feature amongst the survey respondents.

However, the most common and recurring pain points within Discover centred on accessing the content of found resources. Here, it was often the multiplicity of full text linking options being presented and/or inconsistencies with the positioning of these links within the detailed record that was problematic. In both the observational data and the group discussions, there were many references of participants appearing hesitant, unsure of which option to choose.

It was a similar story with the isit@liverpool? link resolver page. Here again the multiple options presented (compounded further by additional catalogue search and referencing options) were problematic for some. It was obvious that there were also some difficulties encountered when subsequently trying to access the resource itself after landing on the native publisher sites. The unfamiliarity with and variations within the different sites often left participants unsure how to access the content sought or whether it was actually available at all.

A comment left by one survey respondent in particular provides a good reflection of how many of the participants in the group discussions found the multiple linking options presented:

“DISCOVER is great for finding what's out there - but very poor indeed for going straight to an article which is ALWAYS what I want it for! You get loads of options for how to get something - there are multiple links to

follow and often you end up on a page where you can't get the PDF … I don't care one bit HOW I get to the article, just THAT I get to it! You should replace all the needless options with one link that definitely goes to

the PDF - anywhere - it doesn't matter!”

As noted in a recent study, resources that throw up barriers or fail to produce full text will often be avoided (D’Couto et al, 2015). There was certainly some evidence of an unwillingness to pursue content in the face of such barriers in the discussion groups. Here, one participant in particular advised that when faced with isit@liverpool? as the sole option, unless it was a particularly key or important resource they would simply abandon it and try an alternative instead.

The discussion groups also confirmed that the branding itself was the cause of some confusion with a number of participants unsure of its purpose. Some thought it related purely to the Library’s physical collection whereas another assumed that it was a means of searching John Moores University’s library collection.

Jeff Woods Collections, Content and Discovery, University of Liverpool Library, 2015 42 Many participants were also observed trying to use either the location or class mark links that appear in the item records for networked resources as a means of accessing the full text. Rather than achieving the desired effect, this actually took them through to the Electronic Library webpage instead and left most assuming that they would have to re-search the resource again from here. However, perhaps more concerning was that it also led another to conclude that this meant the content wasn’t actually available at all. This was also an issue for some participants when using the Classic Catalogue.

When asked to compare Discover to the Classic Catalogue there certainly seemed to be a preference for the much more intuitive, familiar and friendlier layout of Discover. Many found it to have a cleverer, more efficient search engine although this may also have been influenced to some degree by the different default search indexes applied to the quick search boxes from the Library

homepage. A couple of participants also commented that the catalogue interface itself looked old fashioned and dated.

Despite these misgivings, the catalogue was well used and being taken directly into the bibliographic record of a specific book was particularly valued. However, some participants reported difficulties with other aspects of the interface, in particular with the way search results were often presented when there was no single, direct match found. Here, multiple and/or adjacent options would be listed but with little or no additional detail to distinguish between them although many of these issues could have been mitigated or even avoided altogether with better search techniques and/or employing some of the additional functionality available such as the Extended Display option. In fact, there appeared to be very little use made of any of the additional features and functionality available. The facets to limit and refine results to specific collections also received limited use, with no use at all made of any of the advanced search (More searches) options.

In spite of this, the overall impression is that most participants appeared to express a preference for using the Classic Catalogue when searching for book titles. This does seem to be supported to some extent by the survey findings where the catalogue was a slightly more popular option than Discover when seeking information for assignments. However, it should also be noted that the survey also shows that the second most popular use for Discover after researching a topic was to find a specific book title, with over half of all respondents who used Discover advising that they would use it for this purpose.

Both Discover and the catalogue appear to have issues with the way search results are ranked. The pre-cursory search testing had shown that the catalogue ranked different editions of the same title according to their bibliographic record number in the library management system. This means that earlier editions will almost inevitably appear before any later editions.

The observational notes also revealed some issues with the way Discovers ranks journal titles. However, the pre-cursory search tests had also shown that it tends to rank the electronic version of a title higher than its physical counterpart but appearing to do so too enthusiastically, often ranking earlier electronic editions of a title before later print editions. Even other, similar electronic

resources containing some keywords were often ranked higher than a print title exactly matching the search term.

Jeff Woods Collections, Content and Discovery, University of Liverpool Library, 2015 43 The catalogue certainly had a higher success rate with print book title searching than Discover (88% to 76%) but a slightly lower success rate with locating electronic titles (96% to 100%). Again, though there is the need perhaps to also bear in mind here the different default search indexes employed. Could this also go some way to explaining the apparent lack of awareness of Discover highlighted earlier in the report, at least amongst the science based respondents given their reliance on textbooks – is there little real need for them to actually go beyond the catalogue? Is it also feasible to speculate then that library users discern further between electronic and print titles when deciding upon which tool to use? Are they more likely to use the catalogue to locate physical copies,

particularly when ‘on site’? There were certainly some allusions in the group discussions to this effect.