Resource Description

The key points learnt regarding resource description are:

·         It is a general process that describes any resource or item regardless of medium

·         It enables users to locate and retrieve an item easily – a functional requirement

·         It is based on a cataloguing code of standards

With reference to Resource Description and access:

·         It is a new philosophy with new cataloguing rules, new terminology and new relationships between entities (Stone, August 26, 2013). 

·         Some of the present fields for information in cataloguing codes such as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) will still be used but in a different way. 

·         There will be new fields for existing data as well. 

·         Cataloguer’s judgement is given a wider scope for alternatives and optional additions but the way information is inputted must be very consistent. 

·         Each creation of an item/document/material is a separate manifestation.  For example, if it is in a different format such as a book compared to a DVD of the same title or a different year of publication, these are different and separate records.

Reflections upon key factors to consider when structuring a bibliographic resource description

·         It must suit the user group for whom it has been constructed, for example there are three levels:

o   a simple catalogue user with virtually no search experience needs an uncomplicated description

o   Middle ground user who needs a more detailed description on say, scholarly research articles.

o   Highest level who needs specialised research material for a highly expert search

·         Content description must be consistent, accurate and to one standard only.

·         Author, title, subject etc must be in hierarchical order.

Standards I will use for bibliographic resource description?

Dublin Core – DCMI – will be the standard I use for my database. 

What are the advantages of RDA over ACCR2?

AACR2 describes how to record details of a document or material and is basically set up to record print material so is outdated when the coding for print material is applied to digital media and web-based resources (Miller, 2011, p. 217).   Inconsistencies also arise when a resource falls between two formats so could be coded under two different categories (in AACR2’s chapter on how to categorise).  For example a map could be categorised as both an electronic and a physical resource but yet provide the same information.  On the other hand, because RDA incorporates FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records), it collocates different versions and editions of the same work so that the user can find and compare these more easily (Zabel & Miller, 2011, p. 218). 

When articles or books have more than three authors, AACR2 only provides an access point to the first author and that author has the ‘statement of responsibility’ with no acknowledgement for the other authors.  On the other hand, RDA provides access points for every author of an article and does not follow the ‘rule of three’ (Zabel & Miller, 2011, p. 219). 

RDA eliminates Latin terms which AACR2 still use.  In RDA all phrases are in the language of the catalogue record and the full phrase is used to describe a document without a  publisher, for example, ‘[publisher not identified]’ and this information is provided by the cataloguer if details are not given on the document.   

With AACR2, for each entity a different standard needs to be consulted, for example Library of Congress Classification (LCC) standard for the assignment of a class number to collect it (like the Dewey system) and a different standard, the Library of Congress Subject Headings for assignment of subject terms.  A standard digital format also needs to be used, Machine Readable Cataloguing (MARC) to encode the information selected to include in the record (Miller, 2011).  The recorded information then becomes part of the library’s ‘Integrated Library System’ (ILS) which determines how this above information will be accessed and retrieved in the Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC). It is a long process.

On the other hand, Resource Description and Access (RDA) catalogue coding framework or standard describes ‘what’ to record, not ‘how’ to record as with AACR2.  It is made simple for users outside the library community as its ten separate elements are based on user tasks (Stone, August 26, 2013).  It is independent of encoding schemas (Stone, August 26, 2013) but has to be able to work within the present standards so its data is adaptable and sharable unlike AACR2 .  For example it has been built to work within a library’s present system so has been designed as an online product (Stone, August 26, 2013).   However it still keeps to the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data), so is familiar to library staff. 

RDA is also a universal cataloguing code that can be used in any language which makes it far easier to access and retrieve material from any database or library in the world, assuming they have adopted RDA.  When inputting data details, abbreviations are no longer used so all terms have to be spelt out in full eg instead of ‘ill.’ for illustration, the full word would need to be used eg ‘illustration’.  Although this is time consuming it makes retrieval far easier for a non-professional library user.  Therefore it is far more advantageous to convert to RDA than continue with AACR2. 

What does the move to RDA over AACR2 mean in evolution of information organisation?

Information will be more easily accessible by users who do not have library skills.  Different manifestations of the same material will be easier to find, locate and navigate.  Material will also be more accessible worldwide as there will be no language barriers. 

References

Zabel, D. & Miller, L. (2011). Resource description and access (RDA): An introduction for reference librarians. Reference and User Services       Quarterly, 50(3), 216-222. Retrieved from: http://rusa.metapress.com/content/wrg1501514721g7n/

 Stone, K. (August 26, 2013).  Resource Description and Access.  [Power Point].  State Library of Queensland. 

Information Architecture and Information Organisation

The key points regarding information organisation and information architecture that I have learnt are as follows:

·        Information should be structured as in a site map and be easily navigable by the user for whom it was designed

·        The metadata should be consistent with categories and sub-categories in a hierarchy with logical subsections and the nomenclature must be understandable by the user regarding labelling and the ‘controlled vocabulary’ (Garrett, 2011).

·        The website should be visually appealing with the most popular items in the middle of the web page such as popular attractions, things to do, weather etc.

·        The information should be available both in the top navigation bar with drop down menus or clickable links and a site map link in the top right hand corner. 

The organising principles used must meet the users’ needs and objectives so how the site is architecturally designed will depend on the type of user. 

·        The information can either be organised from a top down approach with the broadest categories considered first with all sub categories under it or a bottom up approach which considers the most detailed bit of information, a node, in the lowest category which is then added to a larger core that reflects the user needs (Garrett, 2011, p. 90).  The difference with the bottom up approach is that it focuses more on the metadata and controlled vocabulary whereas the top down approach focuses more on the user experience with the information being more usable, useful and acceptable because a wider view has been taken (Downey & Banerjee, 2010).

.

References

Downey, L. & Banerjee, S. (2010). Building an information architecture checklist. Journal of Information Architecture, 2(2). Retrieved from:  http://journalofia.org/volume2/issue2/03-downey/ 

 Garrett, J.J. (2011). Information Architecture in The Elements of User Experience: User Centred Design for the Web and Beyond, 2nd edition, pp.88-101.

Information Architecture and information organisation

1.     How does information architecture impact on information findability?

Information architecture must meet user needs and product objectives (Garrett, 2011, p. 89).  Therefore users must be able to find and identify information easily using a ‘controlled vocabulary’ with which they are familiar and this information must be up-to-date, correct and easily navigable on, say a Council’s website.  There should be a ‘prescriptive navigation scheme’ (Downey & Banerjee, 2010, para. 34) with either a top-down approach with broad categories of information broken down into logical subsections and further subsections or nodes, which  may miss certain important details but can be easily adapted to change (eg Perth City Council’s website), or a bottom up approach (eg Hobart City Council’s website) working from the categorisation of specific user needs or content grouped together, into a larger category incorporating other groups  which may be inflexible to change (Garrett, 2011, p. 90).  How this is set out on the web page is crucial.  Most websites have the main top tab with approximately four or five categories that either have drop down menus (eg Hobart City Council’s website) or clicking to another page that gives further details of where to go (eg Perth City Council’s website).

2.What needs to be taken into consideration when designing a website’s information architecture and the final product?

·        The website must have a site map that is easily accessible eg by a click on an icon in the top right hand corner of the screen.  The site map may be arranged alphabetically or under main subject headings.

·        The website must reflect the needs of its main users whose interests are prioritized.  In the case of Perth City Council, this appears to be tourists who visit the city as details for tourist information is given at the top of the site map.  On the other hand, Hobart City Council gives priority to its own residents with information on any type of pet ownership, including dogs, easily accessible under the main heading, environment.  Hobart also offers information in71 different languages and also larger text options for sight impaired users.  In comparison to Perth City Council with its numerous fines and restrictions on cat and dog ownership, Hobart City Council appears to welcome pets with details on where to walk dogs etc. 

·        The main top tab bar subjects must also reflect the main subject headings in the site map so that users can go to either.

·        Additionally the menu on the left hand side must mirror the main subject headings on the top tab bar so that users can access their specific needs quickly.  The City of Melbourne website is the only one of the three city sites that has this left hand side menu.  It does not have a main tab subject bar at the top.  Its website is not nearly as appealing as Hobart and Perth’s websites.

·        The main middle area of the website should be occupied by headings of general immediate local interest such as ‘latest news’, ‘popular current attractions’  or ‘what’s on’ at museums and current local weather (which must be updated daily).  These need to be able to be changed or updated daily. 

·        The website should be adaptable so that changes can be made with new technology.  Perth City Council, despite its negativity towards pet ownership, highlights its digital accessibility re payment methods for fines etc with icons on the top bar to Facebook etc. Hobart City Council has these but they are not highlighted, placed in the top right hand corner instead.  Both Perth and Hobart have search function so that users can easily type in a keyword and be taken straight to the information they need.   So a search function is advisable for user need.

·        The website (or user interface) should also be visually appealing with images but not over-cluttered (eg Hobart City Council’s website).  The City of Melbourne’s website, despite having images, appears cluttered and uninspired.

3.    Which provided the best information for my specific needs and user experience? 

Hobart provided the best information for specific user needs.  It was also available in 71 different languages.  The language was user friendly giving advice without being dictatorial, like Perth City Council’s ‘you must not ….’.  Hobart City Council positively offered advice on where to take dogs for walks etc.  Hobart gave information on how to register, look after and abide by Council regulations on every conceivable pet.  Hobart also gave the best user experience for my needs on dog, cat or poultry ownership.  However, if I was a tourist, Perth City Council would have been my preferred site for specific user need. 

References:

Downey, L. & Banerjee, S. (2010). Building an information architecture checklist. Journal of Information Architecture, 2(2). Retrieved from:  http://journalofia.org/volume2/issue2/03-downey/ 

 Garrett, J.J. (2011). Information Architecture in The Elements of User Experience: User Centred Design for the Web and Beyond, 2nd edition, pp.88-101. (attached here).

 

 

 

The role of the user and user experience in database design and development

In order to ascertain how students undertook web searching, I observed and subsequently interviewd a grade 6 student.  This student had been asked to present a talk on a selected town in Queensland.

While searching, the student used only one search engine, Google Chrome, and did not go beyond the first page of sites that appeared, as found by Edwards and Bruce (2006, p. 352).  She was confused by the fact that differing information was given on the same town, Gin Gin when she inputted the search term ‘gin gin attractions’.  She did not use Boolean operators to refine her search such as a ‘minus’ sign (-) abutted to the second ‘gingin’ that could have deleted this Western Australian Gingin from the search results.  Once I suggested she use the mius sign, she redid her search, as originally planned, and found appropriate sites more easily.  However non-relevant sites such as Estate Agents appeared frequently in the first two pages and reappeared when similar search terms were used eg ‘gin gin traditional owners’.  Once Google had ‘remembered’ her first searches, it returned to estate agent sites despite slightly different search terms.  Notwithstanding these problems, the student confirmed she would use Google Chrome again with the Boolean operator.

While the student did not use a specific library database or student-friendly website, to carry out her research, the role of users in database design and development must be taken into account.  As Manzari and Trinidad-Christensen (2006) assert,  ‘the interface [of a website] should be designed for a specific community of users and set of tasks to be acomplished with the goal of creating a consistent, usable product’ (p. 163).  The website should have links to other relevant websites, the library’s other databases and its catalogue.  Similarly, databases should make information easily accessible by users when using Boolean search operators.

In order to ascertain user needs, I would give them a specific task and observe their reactions during their information searching, without assistance.  I would then question them regarding their feelings during this process and exactly where they may have felt confused or frustrated.

References

Edwards, S. L. & Bruce, C. S. (2006).  Panning for gold:  understanding students’ information searching experiences.  In Transforming IT Education:  Promoting a culture of excellence.  Informing Science Press, Santa Rosa, California.  http://eprints.qut.edu.au/990/

Manzani, L. & Trinidad-Christensen, J. (2006).  User-Centered Design of a Web Site for Library and Information Science Students:  Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Testing.  http://faculty.mercer.edu/lewis_am/pdfs/UCD%20for%20Library.pdf