Lightning Round. (i couldn’t resist, they’ll be discussing website redesign, purchase on demand using ILL requests, electronic dissertations and theses, and a broad survey of buy not borrow programs – all things we’re looking at in my library).
1. Current trends in library wen site redesign with CMS/Drupal by Elaine Chen
Linrary migrated to drupal in summer 2009. Design for interface took over six months, hard to design to be on homepage due to jockeying for position so did a survey. Stevem fox reviewed five. Hundred university home pages and identified three trends. She looked to see if they had same trends in design, navigation and technology trends. Focus on libraries using drupal.
Review process was two staged. First stage look at built with.com through fore fox browser. Stage two review design, test navigation, used google forms to collect data. Eva,uation criteria: Stewart Foss. Intiial findings, thirty one new library wensites using drupal. Two in foreign languages, one in word press, nine didn’t returnnpositive for drupal, and so nineteen sites made it to second stage review.
Design trends. All have wider design and three d elements. News and events om home page. Wider dedsign uses full screen. Threed dimensional graphics. News events on home page. Centereed design, most no longer justified. Big footers. Site search box on upper right. Big top photos. Bckground designs rare. Navigation trends include popular and quick links, subset navigation in ajax increasing. Social. Etworking sites popular. One nerd percent used Ajax, CSS, and java. Half had mobile, thirty two percent had video intent created by library. Many trends align with home institutions but there is still of. A gap. Probbaly because of fictionality and bc we need to have a place for cataloging search. Libraries tend to have fewer resources with which to build these pages compared to university sites.
2. Purchase on demand: using ILL requests to influence acquisitions by Amy Soma
Summer 2009 after library director attended ala and saw purchase on demand session. Asked for workflow and purchase criteria. Running in fall 2009, so focus on first eight months. Purchase criteria, costs, workflow, pros and cons and plans for future. Purchase criteria fall withing colldev policy, not avail from free lending agreement consortial library, cost couldn’t exceed limits for paying for Ill request m.which is twenty-five for student and fifty for faculty, exceptions for items unobtainable through Ill due to newness or media lending restrictions, buy regardless of cost. Need by date needed to be generous enough for ordering and rush cataloging. Workflow is mediated Ill request. Purchase criteria. If buy, fwd to acquisitions coded as rush order and determines vendor. Enter ill req number in acq modeule of ils, forward item received to cataloging. Cataloging had long established procedures for rush cataloging. Done processing, forward back to ILL for receiving and distribution. Counted as filled ILL and patron notified. Not publicized that they’re doing purchase on demand, is completely behind scenes, they just get material they requested. All about meeting patron need, not workflow ease. First eight months, twenty items purchased at average of twenty-one bucks. One thousand dollars given. Sept throughh may, spent only half of initial budget.
Pros and cons. Pros: meet patron needs, builds collection by adding materials that we know will be used, improves collection use. Eighty percent of materials ordered circled, forty-five percent cried twice. 2.1 circus per item on average. Weaknesses, purchase criteria tilted in favor of faculty, so limited use to students. Increased turnaround because no. Amazon prime Ccount. Future: budget funds will supplement serendipity pleasure easing collection to improve services to students; investigate amazon prime account and work with admin to get such a credit card to decrease current seven to ten day turnaround time.
3. Electronic theses and dissertations: issues alternatives and access by Janice Boyer
University of Nebraska at Omaha. Theses cataloging. In 96 started with dissertations, sent off to umi/ proquest. Early in two thousands, approached. Grad council to. Ask about local digitization. Graduate council support was essentiAl, especially when it came to faculty. Proquest offered free access to digitized disserts from their institution. When they wanted to. Go. Electronic for all theses and not just dissertations. Proposal written, had to navigate many issues, seven drafts. Setting up site during proposal phase so folks were ready, and many faculty looked at this while under construction. They ask for a lot information when nailing out forms. Link to grad studies pages for single-updates in the future instead of multiple pages. When administrators assigned, make sure there is someone from the library involved so they can nrun reports, etc. Pilot project in summer 2007, two theses. Fall 2007 about twenty, in 2008 it became mandatory. Steps are simple. Select traditional or open access, info for pro quest, subbing manuscript, uploading. Optional steps include multimedia, supplemental material, copyright, order copies.
Issues: faculty concerns, concerned about embargoes, twenty-four page previews, embargo is up to two. Years. Formatting in PDF done by button. Bound copies for archives and stacks, decided didn’t want stacks copies and not popular since students still have to buy copies for departments. Costs, now theses have to pay for publishing fees and higher. Now pro quest only charges if submitted by paper. Alternatives: network digital library of theses and dissertations, institutional repositories. Access: selling point to faculty was better online access. Archival copies still important in paper or microfilm.
4. To buy and not borrow: does it pay? By Brad Reel
October 2009 u of southern Indiana at Evansville. Wanted to see how they could refine and tweak based om what others were doing. Purpose of study was to identify academic libraries using buy not borrow or consideringone. Measure overall satisfaction of programs in place and collect overall best practices. Methodology was a twenty-two question survey via listservs and oclc message boards. Variety of question styles including yes no, scale, open ended. Four questions allowed for more than one answer. Invitation for additional comments. Made avail for twenty-two days. Questions based on lit reviews and usi policies. Fiftyone surveys, skipsmart. Twentyfive to thirty-nine responses.
What criteria are using to decide purchases?
How long have you had such a program? Twentyseven percent bend owing it three to five years. Restrictions in place: no textbooks, no theses, no popular fiction, limit on how old, no AV, no. Self published, nothigout of stock. Where are they buying their books? Amazon, alibis, other, baker and Taylor, barnes and noble, Abe books, . Others, black well, better world, Yankee, etc to check prices. Rationale: contributing patron driven requests to collection, expedite ILL, cost savings. Which patrons generate requests? Forty percent faculty, twenty-three percent undergrad, masters twenty percent, doctoral fifteen percent. Schools with no grad students may skew this data. Which areas of study generate? History most, then English. How likely to continue? Most a extremely satisfied, no one dissatisfied.
Best practices: not a lot of specifics. Purchase criteria suitable for institution; customized workflow, software like ILLiad and odyssey, direct request, get in system toolkit, j-tech, keep an eye on purchase on demand for ebooks and direct requests. Survey very successful. Agreed upon criteria was shipping availability, delivery time. Differences: price, av or not, publication date, catalog first v patron first then process. Conclusions: libraries and patrons satisfied