WebJunction

Hi,

I wanted to thank Sharon for all of her work on this. I know it's difficult to work on something so hard and long and then get all of these questions! I appreciate your willingness to be open to continued change with this.

In reference to today's conversation, I just want to encourage us to try to hash out the Patron Services taxonomy more clearly before we launch this. I do believe that it is a very important part of the site, and I think users will be confused by the current suggested hierarchy.

I think Dawne was right about the difference between what library staff would normally think of as "Information Services" and "Patron Services." So having that (IS) as a sub-heading that would include the Patron Services to all populations other than those listed in those sub-headings will confuse people I believe.

I'm not totally sure what the answer is at this point, but I would like to hear what others have to say.

Overall I think this taxonomy is excellent and logical, though I agree that the Patron Services area could cause some confusion. The terms "Information Services" and even "Patron Services" won't mean much to most librarians. I can't imagine that anyone would guess, for instance that "Reader's Advisory" or "Patron Training" would fall under the "Information Services" umbrella. And I'm not sure everyone even today connects "Patron Services" with services to special populations (Children, Spanish Speakers, etc.).

I suppose one solution would be to try to think of better language to replace "Information Services" and possibly even "Patron Services." But that may be difficult. The other solution would be to eliminate the "Patron Services" umbrella and create two separate umbrellas. One umbrella could be "Library Services" and the other could be "Special Patron Groups", or "Serving Special Populations." Too many umbrellas makes for a crowded sidewalk, but at least the taxonomy stays shallow. And I do believe that Reference, Gov't information, Reader's Advisory, etc. are really held together because they are services provided by libraries and not services just dealing with "information."

On a related topic, I think there may be a slight problem with placing the technical services topics under "Library Management" / "Collection Management." I know a few catalogers who might get a tad touchy about their topic being lumped in with the pencil pushing managers! Providing collections is more like a standard library service, so if there really was a section on "Library Services" (rather than"Information Services") then you could put them there and drop the "Management" tag.

I just throw these thoughts out as food-for-thought, I'm not married to them.

A few of us did some brainstorming about the proposed Taxonomy for Patron Services. Attached are some suggested revisions that we came up with that seem to make much more sense to us.

Note not only the changes, but also the explanations/comments on the document trying to explain our collective thought process.

We would love to hear reactions to these suggestions.

Lisa

Attachments:

taxonomy_PatronServicesl1.xls (37.0k)

It's great to have other minds looking at this also! I wanted to clarify something though just so there is no misunderstanding, it wasn't just "Illinois" making these suggestions, we did some brainstorming in a smaller setting with some other CPs to get a broader perspective.

In response to your concern about the Library Type - this was definitely an area where there was much discussion in our small group. We totally understand the potential confusion for where to place content based on these Library Type nav areas, but the problem we have is that we serve a multitype library community here in Illinois, and there really is no place in the current taxonomy for content that is specific only to certain library types.

Just an example, we are attempting to engage more Special Libraries here in Illinois in using the site and contributing content. We had a Special Librarian write an article on how to Celebrate National Library Week in a Special Library. There really is no place on the site for that, except for the nav item we have created on WJIL for Special Libraries.

Some of us were thinking that this area would be specifically for that content that has no other place on the site, and for the opportunity for library staff in libraries other than Public settings to network.

I would love to have other suggestions though. The bulk of the content on WJ Global is obviously for Public Libraries, but at least in Illinois, we're cutting out a huge population of users by not addressing other library types (Academic, Special and School) in some way.

Lisa

Yes, we have the same concerns about cutting off the non-publics. The problem isn't in finding a place to put the content, but in making sure they can find it. Using search is one solution. Another solution we are considering is to create pathfinders for each library type and have the pathfinders link to all the content made specifically for that type. Then we would create prominent links to the pathfinders on the home page. That gives the non-publics quick access and lets them know we are at least thinking about them.

Tom

Good question. That's the problem with using pathfinders rather than WJ-Global NAV items. If we create the pathfinder we own it and if someone else creates relevant content (like Maine) we have to find it and add a link to it ourselves. On the other hand, If WJ-Global creates the pathfinder, then content we create may not get included. Right now, the former option seems better than the latter.

I wonder whether WJ could make the pathfinders NAV items (e.g. School Libraries Pathfinder, Special Libraries Pathfinder, etc.), but not make them part of the existing hierarchies. The only way to get to them would be by search or through a link (not a tab) on the home page. Just thinking aloud.

Tom

Thanks, all, for building on the discussion around this topic. I have been synthesizing your comments and at this point I am inclined to move forward with most of the suggestions in the document created by the subteam.

1) It sounds like everyone is onboard with Patron Services becoming Library Services and feels that our members will not be disturbed by the change either. So, let's go for it.

2) I did initially think along similar lines of Tom's comment about the "slippery slope" of subdividing along too many different facets (patron type, library type, service type). But I find the subteam's argument that we need to be more proactively visible in our embrace of non-public libraries very compelling, and having some specific areas of the site directed to them is a great way to do that.

3) Resources was accidently left as an item under Information Services, but we had already determined that that content should be with Reference and not appear as its own section, for the reasons you mentioned.

4) Sorting alphabetically is interesting. Our analytics have shown that people click most frequently on the top item within the navigation. So, after our February 2006 refresh when Services to Children became the top link under Patron Services, the clicks on that nav item sharply increased. However, that section of the site doesn't have much content, and perhaps discouraged visitors from further exploration. Meanwhile, we have heavy interest in the SLO and Rural content--and lots of content in those communities, yet those were pretty far down on the list. This doesn't mean we shouldn't alpha-sort--I just wanted to put in the consideration that (a) people tend to click on links in order if they are browsing, and (b) people like to have their most used links at the top of the navigation.

5) I would like to retain Immigrants as a section, as it does include more issues than language issues. I was also a little confused by "World Languages" as a topic, because to me that would include resources about languages, rather than serving patrons who are from non-U.S. countries or non-English cultures.

6) About the move of Technical Services to Library Services: In my mind, what was "Patron Services" was focused on the patron, i.e., service that extended directly outward, and the content under Library Management is about all the activity that happens to establish, build, and maintain the library itself. So in that sense, I see the technical services functions fitting under Library Management. But perhaps now we are changing the focus of those two super-topics: is Library Services now the bigger umbrella topic, and Library Management more focused on the issues around being a manager of a library? I am okay with that, but I am curious whether that is a shared understanding.

7) I agree with your other suggestions. I may want to put the "Older Adults/Seniors" and "Young Adults/Teens" nomenclature issue in front of some of the folks who have been facilitating those topics on WJ, to see if they have any other perspective. My inclination would be to go with "Teens" and "Seniors" because they are more widely used and understandable, IMO.

Again, thank you so much for this discussion and feedback.

-Sharon

Good decisions, good compromises all around.

A few comments:

Your points on alphabetical arrangement have me convinced. I don't think alphabetical arrangement is necessary in this case.

"World Languages" doesn't mean much to me. We use "Non-English Speaking Populations." We don't like it, but at least it is easily understood.

No surprise, but I agree that Library Services is a bigger umbrella than Patron Services and could include more borderline topics.

Finally, I do believe that introducing Library Type to Library Services means adding it to Library Management. Logically, someone will probably argue it should also appear in Technology.

Tom

I have to say that I still think the alpha arrangement makes the most sense in the case of these long second level nav lists such as under what is now going to be "Library Services."

If it's not alpha, what is being used to determine the order? If it's the amount of content, that will inevitably change leaving us with an order that is no longer accurate. If it's popularity, that too could easily change with the swing in interest in library topics. For instance Web 2.0 might make the top of the list today, but in 3 years will no longer even be valid. Might not be a perfect example, but you understand what I'm talking about.

There is also the problem that occurs when we as CPs add our own nav items to the hierarchy. We've been struggling with this since we launched our site. As we add new nav items, where do we put them in the order? Do we just throw them in anywhere since it's not alphabetic? Assume they will be "popular" and put them at the top of the list? It's a tough call, and personally I think it makes things look pretty "mish-mashy" so to speak.

When there is an alphabetic order (and by the way, not on the top level hierarchy, but on the secondary and below), we all know exactly where to put new nav items, there is no statement being made intentionally or unintentionally about the importance of any topic, and we know that the alphabet is never going to change, so we don't have to worry about re-arranging yet again as library topics gain and lose in popularity and content on the site.

Just my case for the alphabet. I guess I watched Sesame Street too much :-)

Lisa

Hi there,
I've had some follow-up conversations about this (and am continuing to monitor this discussion) and have some additional comments/questions/proposals:

1. We have moved Collection Management and its subtopics to Library Services, and renamed it Technical Services.

Question: Could Digital Archives--which the subteam placed under Information Services--go under the Processing & Preservation subtopic of Technical Services?

2. As a blend of navigation and pathfinders, I am suggesting we go ahead and create a Library Type section under Library Services, with the Academic, School, and Special subtopics. This would be the primary area for content specific to those types of institutions. However, we can have pathfinders and guides to make sure that folks find relevant content elsewhere on the site.

3. Yes, tagging will be a great tool for us. Although you don't create tags for the title of the page itself, the page description field is indexed, and the page carries a tag cloud that includes the tags of all the content that is associated with that topic. So it should serve as a powerful content-surfacing tool.

However, tagging is still uncharted territory for many web users. We noticed this during the usability testing lab: several participants expressed that they didn't understand tagging and why it would be useful. So we must make sure the "classic" forms of browsing--i.e., the navigation--is not a barrier, especially for our less tech-savvy users.

By the way, we have a Univ. of Washington MLIS student interning with us this quarter who is focusing on tagging as her project. She is gathering the best practices for tagging and will help create the guidelines that all of us administrators (and our members!) can follow to create and use tags to their utmost.

4. Question: What would the Business section under Populations Served contain? Would it address business' needs as a whole and outreach to that community, or is it more focused on reference/resources for business?

5. I spoke with Doug Lord, our Older Adults moderator, about the terminology for that section. Although he advocates for retaining that term, so as to not limit it to Senior Citizens (ie., the elderly) but Baby Boomers as well, he suggested throwing the question out to the Older Adults forum and see what the discussion around that is.

6. Young Adults vs. Teens is a tough one. YA is public-library-specific, and there is YALSA as a well-known organization. But "teens" certainly carries a broader understanding. I continue to see-saw back and forth around this one. You can see from the content on the site, that there is almost a 50/50 division between which term is used.

7. Question: Would Museums & Archives be a subtopic under Special Libraries, or is that a separate library type?

8. The alpha-sort. I see it working in every category except Population Served--in that instance the alphabetized list appears random to the scanning user. I would maintain that users would be more likely to cluster the populations by theme in their head than "see" the alphabetization (except maybe the Sesame Street grads--hee hee). My proposal is to cluster the age-specific topics together, and the cultural/language ones together--and put the others in between. So, it would be:
Children,
Teens,
Students,
Older Adults
Business
People with Disabilities
Immigrants
Spanish Speakers
Tribal & First Nations
World Languages

Okay, I'm waiting for the comments on that idea. :-) But try not to think of the navigation like an index, where deviating from an A-Z would be considered totally nuts. :-)

9. Moving on to Library Management, I would propose we change the topic "Policies & Procedures" to "Law, Policies & Procedures." Under here would--in addition to the topics already listed--be Copyright; and Legal Responsibilities content other than laws related to personnel (which would go under Personnel Management).

-Sharon