Nick has left a comment on the post on MetaLib developments regarding usability (as opposed to accessibility), and I thought it was worth a post. In fact, a later session today covers a usability study.
I’d agree that there are usability issues for MetaLib. However, one message that has been consistently sent to Ex Libris over the last few years is that changing the interface is a huge amount of work for libraries, as it means retraining patrons, and this is bad for PR as well as requiring large amounts of work.
I’m very happy that we aren’t seeing substantial changes, as although it may not be an incredibly intuitive interface, the majority of our users have now been using the interface for at least a year.
In terms of continued development of the interface, Ex Libris has been asked about development of the Aleph OPAC in the light of Primo, and have given a committment to keep developing this, and I guess that the same will be true of the MetaLib interface.
One other point that has come through strongly at this conference is that with a complex product like MetaLib, it is unlikely that Ex Libris can deliver an interface that suits everybody (anybody?). Also, many institutions are interested in integrating MetaLib into other environments (portal, VLE, etc.) This leads to the x-server being even more important – and this is the method by which individual institutions can provide an interface which suits their particular requirements.
If we are going to get picky I’d point out that it is only a third of our undergraduate population and one years worth of taught postgraduates who are ‘new’, which is over 2/3, but I take the point 🙂
The argument that it our interfaces should be ‘as simple’ as Google or Amazon needs further exploration. I’m very much in favour of intuitive and easy to use interfaces, but there is no doubt that doing academic research is harder and more complex than buying a book.