Minutes of Web Usability Group Meetings, 2005
2006 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001
Usability Minutes, December 13, 2005
Present: Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Sadler, Self, Stalberg
Leslie reported that she’d had a brief conversation with Charlotte, and that Garry’s position is under review for re-posting. The position will likely be re-focused to be more of a usability and information architect position. The group raised two issues – how will the person maintain neutrality in leading testing and recommendations if he/she is also in charge of the site design process? And will he/she continue to use this group as a resource? The group brainstormed some names at other institutions that could be contacted in helping to define such a position: Karen Schneider (Librarian’s Index to the Internet), Eric Lease Morgan (Notre Dame) , and contacts at NC State and Indiana.
Leslie reported that the iLink testing is going well, although slowly with scheduling at the end of term. Each test is not taking very long at all, and testers find the questions very easy to answer. The longest test took 18 minutes, including post-test discussion. The only issue so far is some confusion over the label “Request” being used for both purchase requests and for renewals/recalls, etc.
Bess wanted to discuss the possibility of testing faculty projects that she is working with, especially projects like Salisbury, which is the Library is collecting so she is re-implementing the project for the Repository. She is interested in testing current interfaces to inform the redesign process. This could be accomplished with testing or with focus groups of current users of the projects.
Jim announced that MIS is moving forward with a plan to teach introductory classes on how to hold focus groups and how to design and administer surveys. Jim is also scheduled to speak in March about his experiences in publishing his work. Bess added that the Library’s professional interest group is looking for speakers on how to undertake studies and publishing them. Three names mentioned were: Lisa Given (U of Alberta), Gloriana St. Clair (Carnegie Mellon) and Joan Stein (Carnegie Mellon).
Erin asked if anyone knew about the status of Lenya implementation, because the Multicultural Issues Committee was planning to move to Lenya. If Lenya isn’t ready, then they need to get a Dreamweaver license for the person who will be maintaining that site, as well as the TSAG and cataloging sites.
Usability Minutes, October 11, 2005
Present: Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Klepper, Prendergast, Stalberg, Stedman, White
The only agenda item was the review of the current draft of the test questions for the iLink testing. They were based on the original test questions for Virgo, with updates suggested by the iLink group.
Beth Blanton-Kent, Michael Klepper, and Lynda White are all part of the iLink group and provided valuable insight into the requirements for the test. Some re-wording was suggested. Question 2 from the focus group was added. Question 6a was removed when it become redundant with the addition of 2c. 7a was added. Leslie will forward the suggestions to Barbie Selby and the iLink team. Testing will begin on October 20, after Chris Hoebeke has his updates to iLink completed. He has also asked that no testing take place on October 28 because he will be testing the re-indexing.Usability Meeting: September 20, 2005
Present: Barrow, Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Prendergast, Sadler, Stalberg, Stedman, White
Leslie introduced Bess Sadler of Digital Research and Instructional Services, who was attending her first meeting.
Leslie reported Madelyn received a verbal Human Subject testing exemption for our usability studies as long as we do not publish or publicly report on individual tests, and do not archive the recorded tests beyond the term of the internal study. Bess asked if we could get clarifications of the type of publication. She has previously published user behavior studies while at her previous institution that included anonymized descriptions of individual studies, and she had hoped to be able to continue to do this here. Garry also asked for clarification about publishing or presenting summary statistics on tests. Leslie will discuss this with Madelyn; if we plan these sorts of publications we will likely need Human Subject approval instead of the exemption.
Leslie reported that training would start soon on the Morae software, as our room key has been replaced.
Testing plans for Project Access were discussed. Schedules have shifted, and iLink and Multisearch will likely not go live until May 2006. Usability testing for iLink will proceed this fall because iLink is substantially completed. The concept discussed at the previous meeting where the testing would start with the new library home page and proceed to iLink was put on hold. We will just test the functionality of iLink for now, and later test the integrated navigation between the various sites and services once more of the work is completed. All agree that this latter testing is the most important testing to be done, as the integration of the navigation and services is perhaps the most vital goal for Project Access. Some expressed concern about the usefulness of just testing iLink; Steve reminded everyone that Health Sciences, Law, and Darden will be using iLink in a different web site context and would very much encourage standalone iLink testing to address any potential usability issues there.
The group reviewed the questions used in the iLink Library staff focus groups as a possible starting point for testing. After a discussion of the goals for the testing, all agreed to go back and look at the questions used for the Virgo testing a few years ago. Part of the goal is to ascertain that users can still easily do in iLink what they could with the Webcat Virgo interface, so questions as close to those as possible should be used for this test. The group will discuss via email.
On a related topic, Erin expressed concern about timelines, as pushing back on the iLink launch collides with the timeline for the Unicorn data cleanup and underlying Oracle database migration. Chris Hoebeke is aware of the issues; Chris, Lynda and Erin plan to have conversations with Martha about the project timeline issues.
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, October 11, from 2-3 in Alderman 423.
Usability Meeting: August 30, 2005
Present: Barrow, Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Klepper, Prendergast, Self, Stalberg, White
Leslie announced that Bess Sadler of Digital Research and Instructional Services will be joining the group.
Leslie reported that she was in discussion with Madelyn about human subject testing exemptions. This has come up because we will be recording usability tests with Morae, including faces of the participants. Jim Self said that he has always gotten verbal exemptions from the IRB Office, and that he could provide the name of his contact there. Issues that might come up are not recoding faces, limited archiving of tests, and the need for releases.
Leslie reported that training would start soon on the Morae software, as soon as a key snafu is overcome Clemons 311 was re-keyed but our key was not replaced. A CorpTime resource is also needed.
Testing plans for Project Access were discussed. It is challenging to design a test of the integration between the services/products because they reside in both the live production environment and the test environment, and the navigation does not successfully cross the two environments. It is planned that testing will begin in late September/early October for Multisearch and iLink. Somehow including testing of the new home page is vital, because the navigation schemes and new cascading menus are quite a change. The proposal is to start out both tests from the new home page with a similar question to see if the tester can find iLink or Multisearch from the home page, and then the remainder of the questions will focus on each of the services.
The particular interface challenges currently deal with disciplinary versus format-based search and browsing (e.g., architecture versus images regardless of discipline), and dealing with the multiplicity of search options, a-z lists, etc.
Heidi had a series of questions used for the Multisearch staff groups that would be a good starting place to develop those tests. The questions used for the iLink staff groups are a good starting place for the iLink tests.
During the review period, all of the beta services will be available through the Lab space. The lab page will have a link to a page with a blurb/readme that explains the purpose and status, and then links to the actual service. The Lab will include the new Library home page, iLink and Multisearch, as well as the Repository.
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, September 20, from 2-3 in Alderman 423.
Usability Meeting: August 2, 2005
Present: Barrow, Johnston, Stalberg, Stedman, White
Leslie took the attendees to Clemons 311 and gave a brief demo of the Morae software
Usability Meeting: July 5, 2005
Present: Barrow, Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Prendergast, Self, Stalberg, Stedman
Leslie distributed the most recent revision of the Usability procedures document. Changes and additions were suggested for the “Follow-up” section. Leslie will edit. All OK’ed the one-page “cheat sheet” for test facilitation. Leslie will edit both documents once the Lab and the new software are up and running to reflect new procedures with the software.
Garry reported that he had spoken to Charlotte about a site development procedures document, which was determined to be unnecessary. Once the procedures document is revised, there will be discussions with Yolanda about an endorsement of the document from Administrative Council, recognizing the accountability of site owners to abide by the site testing and revision process.
Lynda White briefly discussed the iLink focus groups. These were not true usability tests, but each group of 3-6 was given a set of usability task questions developed by Erika Day and Leslie as a point of discussion for the still-developing interface. Barbie will be invited to a meeting to more fully discuss the process and results.
The current plan is that there will not be a complete cut over on August 1; instead, WebCat will still be live and there will be preview/test/beta access to iLink for all users in preparation for a cut over during the holiday break. The dual interface issue is also pending confirmation from Chris Hoebeke that both systems can run simultaneously and be kept up-to-date. Some user services librarians are concerned about training issues for incoming students. Full usability testing of iLink and SingleSearch will be needed.
It is not yet clear if the new central site pages will still launch on August 1 without the Virgo services cut over. Likely they will.
Now that the new director of ILS has started, Erin will touch base with him about testing.
Beth reported on the summary of the SEL Lab site testing. The results were very consistent, and a number of recommendations are outlined in the report, including heuristic issues, navigation issues, pages with no content, branding issues for Brown SEL digital initiatives (branded as Brown SEL or SEL Lab?), and the need for the look & feel of the site to match the Brown SEL site. Garry will write the formal report.
Leslie briefly reported on the metric stats for 2004-2005. Four sites initially expected to be part of the year’s work were excluded from the count because they were not ready to test, and moved to the tally for 2005-2006. Of the six remaining sites, four were tested and one test (Image Repository) is yet to be completed. Because the Repo test is not yet complete, it will not be counted as such, so four out of six sites, or 67%, were tested this year. This does not meet the metric targets. More discussion is definitely needed about support for this activity; this is now backed up by years of not being able to test enough sites to meet the metric.
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, August 2, from 2-3 in Alderman 423.
Usability Meeting: June 7, 2005
Present: Barrow, Johnston, Prendergast, Self, Stalberg
Leslie announced that Nancy Newins has resigned her position at the Darden Library, and will no longer be part of the Usability group.
Jim and Leslie announced that a space for the Usability Lab has been found. Its a small room on the 3rd floor of Clemons, which will be shared with a little-used streaming server for Hoo TV. Ian will start clearing out equipment. Leslie will arrange for Usability equipment to be moved over. The whereabouts of the PC will be confirmed and it will be moved over. A CorpTime group will be set up to allow Usability members to book the room for tests.
The UVa usability test procedures were reviewed. Small corrections were noted. A section will be added on heuristic testing. More will be added on creating log forms. The re-testing section will be expanded to clarify that one does not use the same participants, but does use the same questions and number and categories of participants.
Garry gave a brief paper-based presentation of the current status of the iLink and Library home page designs. All understood that the layout and labeling are still under discussion and additional changes will be made, but the overall navigation and concept were very well received by the group.
Membership of usability was discussed. There may be an addition from the RMC. Fine Arts representation was mentioned. All agreed that tests are not being completed because the Usability members have so many other projects on their plates, especially with Project Access and the Repository launch. It was agreed that interns and/or part-time wage staff will be needed to ramp up the level of activity. Jim will speak with Yolanda.
SEL Lab testing Leslie will check in with Beth Blanton-Kent if we can go ahead and write up the summaries and recommendations.
ILS It was agreed that we will proceed with the ILS test because the new director doesn't arrive until August and it might take a long time to get around to it after he begins, especially with the Relais launch going on at the same time.
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, July 5, from 2-3 in Alderman 423.
Usability Meeting: April 26, 2005
Present: Barrow, Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Newins, Self.
The first topic was raised by Jim – the possibility of developing a short course or session on usability testing. This is part of an ongoing effort to encourage proper assessment, and the development of an assessment curriculum. The audience would be site owners and new usability committee members. Other possible topics for the curriculum would be how to conduct a focus group, how to create and administer surveys, and an introduction to statistics. All agreed that all of the ideas sound great. There is more planning to do; Jim will get back to the group.
Leslie shared a rough first draft of a revised UVA Library usability test procedures document. Feedback is welcome. The draft will be sent out electronically to all. It will need revision once the Usability Lab and software are in place. A separate document will be under development through Garry and the Communications department on the UVA Library site development process, which will include references to usability testing.
There was a discussion of testing procedures at other institutions. Nancy reported that the Lab at Randolph-Macon was a 2 room lab. No one was in the room with the test subject; all observers were in the separate room watching through a two-way mirror. There was no verbal interactions with the test subjects- they responded to the questions from a printout and their actions were recorded.
Nancy reported that she had spoken to colleagues at OCLC about their testing procedures. They do not record any quantified improvement as part of their testing.
Leslie reported that NC Sate also does not record any quantified improvement, and usability testing is not part of their formal site development process.
All agreed that the focus of the new metric should be measuring improvement, not attempting to quantify all the answers.
There was a report on the Virgo focus groups currently in progress to inform the new iLink implementation. Not all are done yet, with some faculty still to go. The common threads are improving the pathways to the databases; better explaining how to find articles (many still use the Virgo catalog); that only faculty seem to use the left navigation bar in the Virgo catalog; that the browse options are essentially unused; that the “call number search” mystifies users (“If I knew the call number, why would I be searching for it?”); and that users have no idea what “manuscripts” are.
Leslie reported on the repository Image collection testing under way. Only two tests were complete so far, and the responses were different enough to not supply trends yet. She asked for names of faculty to recruit as testers.
The SEL Lab testing will wait for completion until after the term is over.
The ILS testing will start soon, now that it has been decided not to wait for the new director to arrive.
The next meeting on the schedule has to be cancelled due to conflicts. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 7, from 2-3 in Alderman 423.
Usability Minutes, April 5, 2005
Present: Barrow, Blanton-Kent, Cooper, Johnston, Newins, Self, Stalberg,
Stedman
Leslie was pleased to introduce Nancy Newins, the latest member of the group.
Nancy joins us from Darden. Prior to arriving at UVA, Nancy was very involved
in usability at Randolph Macon. We are thrilled to have Nancy join us, and
apologize again for the communications glitch in inviting her.
This meeting's discussion revolved around metrics for measuring the success
of usability testing. Yolanda Cooper joined us.
The current metric only measures that we have tested a site. Not that it's
useable, just that we’ve tested it. The new testing process must include
testing a site, making recommendations to the site owner, updating of a site,
and re-testing of a site.
What will the metric actually measure? Leslie pulled together what data we
have on time benchmarks for tests already performed. There were six initial
tests and two re-tests. For initial tests, task averages ranged from 61 to
172 seconds. On the re-tests (none for sites for which we have time data),
task averages were 72 and 79 seconds. Time is not a useful enough metric because
all users take different paths and perform tasks differently, often finding
the right answer. Some tasks take much longer as well, so task time benchmarks
are not the answer.
The general consensus is that the metric should measure improvement between
initial testing and re-testing. For an initial test, we could record the percentage
right answers found on the first try, regardless of the path they followed.
The same would be recorded for the follow-up tests, where we will be looking
for improvement in the re-test. In this the process and the metric will help
enforce the requirement that site usability recommendations be acted upon.
Yolanda is also willing to assist in reinforcing the role and importance of
usability in the Library. It's time for more evangelization about usability
– here's the process and policy, it won't be time-consuming, and it will
help the users of your site. Details of methodology would need to be worked
out, as would the wording of the metric and the targets.
In setting up a new metric, there are some ground rules and documentation
that are also required: A standard for setting up a UVa Library site; a documented
process for building a site that includes the involvement of (and accountability
to) Communications and Usability; and a documented process for testing sites.
A testing process document does exist, but it will need review and updating
to include additional documentation on timekeeping and a format for writing
up recommendations. The documentation and formalization will reinforce that
these processes must be followed and that testing be done.
Garry, Charlotte, and Yolanda will coordinate the development of an UVa Library
Site Development Process document.
Nancy said that she would help research metric and benchmarks used by other
libraries.
Leslie additionally reported that Repository usability testing is getting
started. Erin said that ILS testing will start after her work on a search
committee is done in April.
Steve Stedman reported that a group is being organized for web developers
across grounds. Leslie also mentioned Nathan Piazza's Interface group, which
meets irregularly.
Steve also mentioned that the HSL site would be getting a new template for
its site, which is delivered through a content management system. Garry reported
that work is progressing toward a new Library central site alongside "Project
Access" for the Sirsi-driven services. Leslie mentioned that testing
of Lenya is progressing with the Staff site.
The next meeting is April 26 from 2-3 in Alderman 423.
Usability Meeting: March 16, 2005
Present: Barrow, Johnston, Prendergast, Self, Stalberg
Leslie announced that the equipment for the Usability Lab has started to arrive.
The Morae software and the video equipment have arrived. Leslie will tell
Yolanda. Jim said that Yolanda is in discussion with SEL about a possible
location.
The ILS tests will not be scheduled until April because Erin's time is taken
up with chairing a search committee.
The SEL Lab test still needs to have the faculty tests completed.
Leslie distributed questions for the final draft of the Image Repository test.
All OK'd the questions. Leslie will schedule tests.
Jim distributed a draft of Usability Testing Guidelines for discussion. He
pulled some language from two sites – usability.gov and the OCLC usability
testing site – to try to identify something measurable that we might
be able to use for a revised metric. The suggested procedure involves the
group identifying a task time benchmark – say 60 or 90 seconds –
in which all tasks that a user might perform on a Library web site should
be completed. In other words, if asked how to find a DVD of Babette's Feast
during a Virgo test, the user should be able to perform that task within the
benchmarked time. The proposed process would involve setting a benchmark,
testing a site, providing recommendations, and, after the site is revised,
re-testing the site to see if the benchmark is achieved for all tasks.
The discussion revolved around whether achieving such benchmarks actually
means that a site is "usable." All agreed that meeting such a benchmark
does not necessarily mean that a site is usable. The most important issue
is that we will not change how we define our tests and identify test tasks,
so we will continue to get the type of input that we need from the tests.
Garry will still be in charge of coordinating recommendations and working
with site owners on revisions. Our testing process will not change, except
that we will now re-test all sites after the re-design. The only new task
is that we will separately tally testing against task performance benchmarks
for the metric.
Leslie offered to start pulling together task performance time data from recent
tests where the data is available, to inform the creation of benchmarks.
The group then discussed the Find@UVA OpenURL Resolver Forum, since three
of the Usability group members were at the Forum and usability issues were
raised at that meeting. The issue is not a problem with the Resolver tool,
but a problem with information architecture and navigation in the web site
and in Virgo. Multiple paths are good, but not when there are many links in
many places that are labeled differently and may lead to different locations
with too much duplicative content. An example from the Forum is the lack of
a link from the main library page. There actually is a link under the Virgo
search box – "Go to databases" – but it's confusing because
the term databases is used there and other links say "Journal Finder"
or "Article Finder." The navigation and the paths through the sites
have developed through accretion rather than through a concrete plan. We have
an opportunity with the new Sirsi modules to introduce new information architecture
and look & feel to the web space and to the OPAC and other services. Garry
has been in talks with Martha and Diane about the web space, and is on the
iLink project group.
Erin mentioned related data issues that should be taken into account in such
an interface review. Her example is item types in Virgo. There are over 100
item types and it's really hard to perform a task like find a book, because
there are dozens of item types for books based on location of specific type
(oversize, folio, etc), so building a search behind the scenes is tricky.
A complicating factor is that the data in the item type field is additionally
used to generate spine labels.
The next meeting is April 5 from 2-3 in Alderman 423. Yolanda Cooper will
be joining us to discuss a revision to the usability metric.
Usability Meeting, February 22, 2005
Present: Barrow, Blanton-Kent, Johnston, Prendergast, Self, Stalberg, White
Leslie announced that Lynda White would have to leave the Usability committee,
as least for now, because she has taken on the co-management of the Sirsi
module replacement project. We will keep Lynda on the distribution list and
the CorpTime because her project will involves testing of the implementation,
and she would like to remain up-to-date on what the group is doing.
The second draft of the Repository Image interface test questions were reviewed.
At issue was the design of a question meant to collect data on a particular
issue – what is returned in the image results set. All finally agreed
on the question "How many portraits of George Washington are currently
in the image collection?" because it will not only expose the users the
issues in the search results, but require users to page through multiple screens
of results. Leslie will start working on the scheduling of the tests. Faculty
and student tester suggestions are welcome. The faculty participating in the
classroom tests will not be part of the usability testing, but part of focus
groups instead.
The student tests of the SEL Lab are almost complete. Faculty tests are still
to be done.
The ILS testing is ready to go. Jean has approved the questions, and the suggestion
that we skip the testing of representatives of borrowing libraries due to
logistical issues. She does want some testing to take place with users who
only have dial-up connections because of the distance learner constituency.
There was continued discussion of a revision to the Balanced Scorecard Metric
on Usability for 2005-2006. The principal issues are ones of quantifiability
and accountability. What do we actually measure in a metric to test success
of testing? How do we "make" site owners apply our recommendations?
Jim and Leslie will contact colleagues at the University of Washington, Indiana
University, and North Carolina to ask how they measure the success of their
testing. Leslie will also invite Yolanda to the meeting on April 5 to discuss
her ideas.
Leslie and Jim reported on the Usability Lab planning. A permanent space has
not yet been identified, but we can temporarily use the office that currently
houses Yolanda's intern Brionna. Leslie will get the equipment order placed
– a desktop machine, the Morae software to capture the test, a monitor-top
camera, and an external camera on a tripod to record the overall testing.
Usability Meeting, February 2, 2005
Present: Barrow, Johnston, Prendergast, Stalberg, White
Leslie reminded the group that a draft had been circulated of terminology-related issues revealed in UVA Library usability tests to be submitted to John Kupersmith at UC Berkeley for his site on Library terminology and interfaces. The group approved the submission. (The information is now available at http://www.jkup.net/terms.html)
Lynda raised the issue of reviewing the Usability metric again for the next year. Yolanda has some concerns that the metric does not currently measure the usefulness of the testing. We measure that we have tested a certain number of our sites, but how do we measure that the results of the tests are applied and improve our information presentation? How do we quantify that issues raised in a test were "addressed" or "adjusted"? How do we define "under review?" One thought is that we test before and after a site is re-worked, but all agreed that it's a lot of work for an all-volunteer effort. It will also greatly reduce the number of sites we can test. There is also an accountability issue - how do Garry or we enforce that changes are made? Our process for writing up summaries should perhaps be documented for consistency's sake. Garry asks that if he is not writing up the recommendation reports to site owners that he at least be asked to review and sign off on the recommendations, to which everyone agreed. The test coordinators will still write up test summaries. Lynda suggested a meeting of the group with Yolanda to discuss, to which the group agreed. The deadline for submission of a revised metric to the BSC is June 1.
Erin asked if we have documented guidelines for web site development, such as navigation or labeling or content standards. Garry replied that there are guidelines on the Communications site, but that they are in need of review. He will look into reviewing and updating them.
The SEL Lab test is underway. 3 staff and 1 student have been tested so far; with another student test happening imminently and another scheduled for within the week.
The ILS questions re reviewed and OK'd. Esther has agreed that Continuing Ed should be tested separately. Erin will work with Jean and Esther.
Testing of the Image Collection interface for the Repository needs to be scheduled soon, as there are reporting and deployment deadlines for which we need user data in addition to the input from the four testing faculty. Leslie submitted some draft questions. Revisions were suggested. Leslie is also struggling to devise a question that will get at an interface issue that has been identified by faculty as a problem - What is included in the image results sets: just the matches from an object, or all the images from an object where there is a match? Garry suggested defining a test search that we know would provide confusing results. Erin suggested "map," and Garry suggested "staircase" as searches that illustrate the issue.
The Etext Center has finally applied the "new' design templates to its site over a year after the process started. A post-design test will need to be scheduled.
Usability Meeting, January 4, 2005
Present: Barrow, Johnston, Prendergast, Stalberg, White
Erin had questions about the scope of the ILS site testing. The ILS department
contains ILL, LEO, Ivy Stacks, and Toolkit scanning. It used to also house
Esther Onega and Continuing Ed services. While Esther is now part of Clemons,
Continuing Ed services still has a strong ILL component. The ILS site links
to Continuing Ed, but Continuing Ed is not graphically part of ILS, nor does
it have any clear navigation to ILS through its main nav bar. The consensus
was that Continuing Ed should be tested separately from ILS. Erin will confer
with Jean and Esther.
There was also some discussion about the difficulty of finding, say, Ivy Stacks
or LEO if you don't know it's part of ILS or called LEO when all you know
is that you can get books delivered when they request it through Virgo. This
will definitely come out in the testing.
Erin passed around draft questions for review. It was agreed that all the
acronyms (ILS, ILL, LEO) had to be spelled out in questions. The first set
was for Faculty and staff. In that set, the third question should be cut.
The fifth question is missing a verb – "Who can and cannot make
a LEO request?" The seventh question should be changed to "Can I
visit Ivy Stacks?" The twelfth question should be reworded – "Can
I have a complete book digitized for my Toolkit site?" In the student
set, the question about LEO request instead reads, "Can students make
LEO requests?" The Ivy Stacks question will be re-worded as in the faculty
set. There are no Toolkit scanning questions.
The logistics of testing the usability for borrowing libraries was discussed.
Perhaps tests can be performed with staff from PVCC and Jefferson-Madison.
In briefly discussing possible tests for the future, Erin raised the issue
of re-conceptualizing and re-designing Virgo. With the purchase of the iLink
software to replace WebCat, it seems a prime opportunity to re-architect and
re-brand the OPAC and other online services. There will certainly be more
discussion of this issue, including Virgo Steering, Communications, and Usability.
2006 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001
