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

1. We Went
Mobile!
(Or Did We?) Presented by:
Laura Turner &
Alejandra Nann
Reviewing and Promoting
Third Party
Device-Neutral
Library Resources

2. Your Presenters
Laura Turner
Head of Technical Services
Alejandra Nann
Electronic Resources and Serials Librarian
Copley Library
University of San Diego

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. A Snapshot of Mobile Device History
1990’s 2015

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. 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. Preliminary Efforts
Establishing
methodology and
testing criteria
Harvesting
resources to test
Initial survey with
student help

12. Preliminary Efforts - Problematic Results?
x + y ≠ z

13. Another Review
• Methodology
• New criteria – from Google
• Single tester
• Workflow and data capture

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Problems Encountered—Mobile Devices
•Mobile Pairing / Auto Apps
•Resources work better on some devices and not others
•PDF and Plugins
•Minor issues

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. Mobile Pairing—Auto Apps

22. Mobile Pairing—Auto Apps

23. Mobile Pairing Instructions

24. BioOne – Desktop vs. Mobile Device

25. Using BioOne on Mobile Devices

27. Apps for Tablets

28. PDFs Issues—Samsung Tablet

29. Plugin and Flash Player Issues--Samsung

30. Flasher Player Issues—Ipad

31. Mobile Friendly?

32. How About This?

34. What We Liked– Ipad and Iphone

35. What We Liked– Samsung Tablet

36. 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.

37. Usage reports / Mobile devices

38. Usage Statistics / Mobile Devices - EBSCO

39. Usage Statistics / Mobile Devices – T&F

40. Usage Statistics/Mobile Devices—Elsevier
**Usage Statistics are from January 2014-September 2015** Provided by Elsevier

41. Usage Statistics for all Institutional Clients
**Usage statistics are for the May 1, 2016-May 26, 2016** Provided by Psychotherapy.net

42. 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

43. Promotion - beyond the homepage
Great! Okay . . . Hmmm.

44. Promotion - beyond the homepage
This is looking good, but is it still confusing?

45. Promotion – standardizing for the user
Maybe this. Or this. We like this!

46. Promotion – access to everything!
Mobile vs. Actual

47. Promotion – keeping up with changes
CIAO in March 2015 Today’s Mobile CIAO

48. Promotion – local considerations
Sharing the design work and
fixing weird display issues
?

49. 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

50. What do YOU think?
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS?

51. Thanks for attending!
Laura Turner lauraturner@sandiego.edu
Alejandra Nann ajsnann@sandiego.edu

52. 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/

53. 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.