Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

We Went Mobile! (Or Did We?)

111 vues

Publié le

We Went Mobile! (Or Did We?)-- NASIG 2016 Annual Conference

Publié dans : Formation
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

We Went Mobile! (Or Did We?)

  1. 1. We Went Mobile! (Or Did We?) Presented by: Laura Turner & Alejandra Nann Reviewing and Promoting Third Party Device-Neutral Library Resources
  2. 2. Your Presenters Laura Turner Head of Technical Services Alejandra Nann Electronic Resources and Serials Librarian Copley Library University of San Diego
  3. 3. Today’s Presentation • Consider the role of mobile access by users and its impact on the library world • Illustrate our efforts to test our library’s mobile access to 3rd-party online resources • Review outcomes of our testing • Evaluate ways to promote resources that are accessible through mobile devices
  4. 4. University of San Diego / Copley Library USD Private Roman Catholic institution founded in 1949 7,671 FTE undergraduate, graduate, and law students Degrees awarded: 42 bachelors, 28 masters, 1 JD/5 LLMs, 3 doctorates Copley Library Main library 15 full-time librarians, 1 part-time 12 full-time staff, 3 part-time
  5. 5. Copley Library Services and Resources • Collection - 500K volumes, 182 databases, 132K+ ebooks • Library website – just released a mobile responsive site on May 25th! • Very little streaming media currently available • Offers laptops for checkout but no actual mobile devices • Provides access to open access journals through Serial Solutions record loads into the catalog • Participates in social media
  6. 6. Inspiration / Support for Testing Why test? ◦ Personal use of devices / San Diego Unified School District’s initiative ◦ Discussions with USD Systems Librarian about upcoming changes to library website Support for Testing ◦ ALCTS Transforming Collections Microgrant award ◦ USD/Copley Library Faculty Research Grant award
  7. 7. Goal of Testing To determine if the third-party resources/service links provided by the library’s website allow a user to interact with each resource / service on a mobile device.
  8. 8. A Snapshot of Mobile Device History 1990’s 2015
  9. 9. Students and their devices in 2015* DEVICE OWNERSHIP Smartphone owners: 92% Laptop owners: 91% HOW MANY DEVICES PER STUDENT? One: 6% At least two: 92% Three or more: 64% None: 2% * Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D.C., Grajek, S. & Reeves, J. (2015). ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR.
  10. 10. What Did the Research Say? Five general types of mobile-accessibility on devices* 1. Responsively designed 2. Dynamic Serving 3. Mobile-optimized 4. Mobile-friendly 5. Mobile or native app *Grey, A., & Isaac-Menard, R. (2015) Database mobile accessibility assessment at Adelphi University Libraries. Journal of Web Librarianship, 9:85-98; Any Place, Any Time, Any Device: Building Websites for the Multi-screen Consumer. (2013). Mountain View, CA: Google, Inc.
  11. 11. Preliminary Efforts Establishing methodology and testing criteria Harvesting resources to test Initial survey with student help
  12. 12. Preliminary Efforts - Problematic Results? x + y ≠ z
  13. 13. Another Review • Methodology • New criteria – from Google • Single tester • Workflow and data capture
  14. 14. Google offers criteria . . . Basic Checklist for the best user experience with mobile* 1. Resource uses mobile-friendly software (ex. uses Vimeo, YouTube, etc. for videos) 2. Text does not require zooming; text is legible from launch of resource 3. Resource does not require horizontal scrolling 4. Links can be easily and accurately tapped *Any Place, Any Time, Any Device: Building Websites for the Multi-screen Consumer. (2013). Mountain View, CA: Google, Inc.
  15. 15. Goal of Testing (slightly revised) To determine if the third-party resources/service links provided by the library’s website allow a user to interact with each resource / service on a mobile device, based on user experience criteria for mobile functionality, as suggested by Google.
  16. 16. Results - Overall 67 of 258 resources successfully met all four criteria for optimal mobile accessibility from the library’s link on all three devices Criteria ranked by success in (overall) testing 1. No horizontal scrolling 2. Does not require zoom to read text 3. Links on the resource site were easy to tap with accuracy 4. Avoids mobile-hostile software
  17. 17. Figuring out fall-out •Served as a clean-up project for the library website – still have back-end work to do •Provided much fodder for discussion with vendors •Fantastic front-end introduction to all of our resources – normally used to the back-end issues •Would not have been possible to accomplish without participation of Electronic Resources and Serials Librarian
  18. 18. Problems Encountered—Local Issues General Database Issues ◦ Security warnings ◦ IP addresses not accurate ◦ Does not support Web Access Management ◦ Separate accounts with same IP addresses ◦ Outdated journals ◦ Access issues until it was time to renew
  19. 19. Problems Encountered—Mobile Devices •Mobile Pairing / Auto Apps •Resources work better on some devices and not others •PDF and Plugins •Minor issues
  20. 20. Library Resources Mobile Apps Resources that require you to download an app: ◦ Taylor and Francis ◦ Guilford Journals ◦ MIT Press ◦ ACM ◦ BioOne ◦ Emerald Resources that offer an app, but do no require you to download it: ◦ JSTOR ◦ EBSCO ◦ Sage ◦ Choice Reviews (App available only for tablets via App Store and Google Play) ◦ BioOne ◦ Nature
  21. 21. Mobile Pairing—Auto Apps
  22. 22. Mobile Pairing—Auto Apps
  23. 23. Mobile Pairing Instructions
  24. 24. BioOne – Desktop vs. Mobile Device
  25. 25. Using BioOne on Mobile Devices
  26. 26. Apps for Tablets
  27. 27. PDFs Issues—Samsung Tablet
  28. 28. Plugin and Flash Player Issues--Samsung
  29. 29. Flasher Player Issues—Ipad
  30. 30. Mobile Friendly?
  31. 31. How About This?
  32. 32. What We Liked– Ipad and Iphone
  33. 33. What We Liked– Samsung Tablet
  34. 34. Responses from Vendors –Usage Statistics •We gather those usage statistics, but it’s for all of our clients and it’s not separated out by institution. •We’re working on it! •We do have them, but they’re available to us in our back office reports. •It’s not available at this time.
  35. 35. Usage reports / Mobile devices
  36. 36. Usage Statistics / Mobile Devices - EBSCO
  37. 37. Usage Statistics / Mobile Devices – T&F
  38. 38. Usage Statistics/Mobile Devices—Elsevier **Usage Statistics are from January 2014-September 2015** Provided by Elsevier
  39. 39. Usage Statistics for all Institutional Clients **Usage statistics are for the May 1, 2016-May 26, 2016** Provided by Psychotherapy.net
  40. 40. Promotion of Device-Neutral Resources GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Getting beyond the homepage Standardizing to ease user frustration Access to everything Keeping up with changes LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS Sharing the re-design work Sorting out wonky displays Developing a workflow Training the trainers
  41. 41. Promotion - beyond the homepage Great! Okay . . . Hmmm.
  42. 42. Promotion - beyond the homepage This is looking good, but is it still confusing?
  43. 43. Promotion – standardizing for the user Maybe this. Or this. We like this!
  44. 44. Promotion – access to everything! Mobile vs. Actual
  45. 45. Promotion – keeping up with changes CIAO in March 2015 Today’s Mobile CIAO
  46. 46. Promotion – local considerations Sharing the design work and fixing weird display issues ?
  47. 47. Promotion – local considerations Developing a workflow ◦ Where does this kind of work belong? ◦ How much effort to determine accessibility is appropriate? ◦ How much promotion do we need? ◦ How often do we review? ◦ Is there a better definition of device-neutral library resource? Is it a local thing? Why? Training the trainers ◦ Not just a reference/instruction issue ◦ But they REALLY need to know what’s going on ◦ Everyone’s an advocate
  48. 48. What do YOU think? QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS?
  49. 49. Thanks for attending! Laura Turner lauraturner@sandiego.edu Alejandra Nann ajsnann@sandiego.edu
  50. 50. Selected Bibliography Barnett-Ellis, P. & Vann, C.P. (2014). The library right there in my hand: determining user needs for mobile services at a medium-sized regional university. Southeastern Librarian, 62(2):10-15. Becker, D. A. (2015). Best practices of library mobile website design: a literature review. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 22(2):167-187. Breeding, M. (2014). Library technology forecast for 2015 and beyond. Computers in Libraries, 34(10):22-24. Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D.C., Grajek, S. & Reeves, J. (2015). ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Dahlstrom, E., de Boor, T., Grunwald, P., & Vockley, M. (2011). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Grey, A., & Isaac-Menard, R. (2015). Database mobile accessibility assessment at Adelphi University Libraries. Journal of Web Librarianship, 9:85-98. Griffey, J. (2010). Mobile technology and libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman. Hu, R. (2010). CDL mobile device user research project. Retrieved from http://www.cdlib.org/services/uxdesign/mobile_project/
  51. 51. Selected Bibliography Iglesias, E., & Meesangnil, W. (2011). Mobile website development: from site to app. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(1):18-23. Kaser, R.T. (2016). E-volving libraries. Computers in Libraries, 36(1):2. Murphy, J. (ed.). (2012). Mobile devices and the library: handheld tech, handheld reference. New York, NY: Routledge. Schonfeld, R. C. (2015, March 26). Meeting researchers where they start: streamlining access to scholarly resources. [Issue brief]. Retrieved from http://sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/SR_Issue_Brief_Meeting_Researchers_Where_They_Start_032615.pdf Smith, S., & Caruso, J. (2010). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Survey of policies to assure mobile device access to the library website. (2014). New York: Primary Research Group. West, M.A., Hafner, A.W., & Faust, B.D. (2006). Expanding access to library collections. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(2):103-107.

×