A comparative review of common user interface products
| Date | 01 June 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830410543502 |
| Pages | 182-197 |
| Published date | 01 June 2004 |
| Author | Daniel G. Dorner,AnneMarie Curtis |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Other articles
A comparative review of
common user interface
products
Daniel G. Dorner and
AnneMarie Curtis
The authors
Daniel G. Dorner is Director of Library and Information
Management Programmes and AnneMarie Curtis is a Research
Assistant, both at the School of Information Management,
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Keywords
Common user interface, Library portals, Software evaluation
Abstract
A common user interface replaces the multiple interfaces found
among individual electronic library resources, reducing the time
and effort spent by the user in both searching and learning to use
a range of databases. Although the primary function of a
common user interface is to simplify the search process, such
products can be holistic solutions designed to address
requirements other than searching, such as user authentication
and site branding. This review provides a detailed summary of
software currently on the market. The products reviewed were
EnCompass, MetaLib, Find-It-All OneSearch, ZPORTAL,
CPORTAL, InfoTrac Total Access, MetaFind, MuseSearch,
SiteSearch, Single Search, Chameleon Gateway, and WebFeat.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
Introduction
Bradley (1995) describes the common user
interface as the Holy Grail of the information
industry. During the 1990s, as a number of
databases were being made available to clients of
academic and other research libraries, librarians
were quick to recognise the difficulty that a variety
of independent interfaces present to searchers, and
the common user interface was identified as a
potential solution.
Common user interface software is designed for
the hybrid library environment, where a library has
both print-based and electronic document
collections. In practice, hybrid libraries are likely to
provide their clients with access to the Internet,
electronic journals, electronic documents,
databases of indexed or full-text journal articles, as
well as one or more online public access catalogs
(OPACs) and traditional print-based collections.
In the past, library users were obliged to search
each of these resources individually. Common user
interface software provides a single search point for
access to a hybrid library’s diverse electronic
collections and catalogues, reducing the time and
effort spent by users in both searching and learning
to use a range of databases.
Although the primary function of a common
user interface is to simplify the search process,
library common user interface products can be
holistic solutions designed to address other
requirements, such as user authentication and site
branding. Common user interface software is a
subset of library portal software products which
aggregate multiple channels of information and
communication through a single interface. Patron
demand for remote access to library collections
and services and the need for consortia to integrate
their collections are increasingly elements in the
uptake of common user interface products by
libraries. Curtis and Greene (2002) report that
“the marketplace is filling rapidly as vendors,
including most major ILS vendors, recognise how
much it is worth to libraries to be able to provide a
way to make searching their resources easier for
their users”.
This review provides a detailed summary of the
features of some of the products currently available
from vendors. As part of this research, 79 common
user interface and portal features were identified
and classified into eight broader categories of like
features:
(1) searching;
(2) user interaction;
(3) customisation;
Library Hi Tech
Volume 22 · Number 2 · 2004 · pp.182-197
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/07378830410543502
Received 23 June 2003
Revised 11 August 2003
Accepted 14 August 2003
182
(4) authentication;
(5) design;
(6) database communication protocols;
(7) after sale support; and
(8) software platforms supported.
The data for this research were obtained through a
survey based on the evaluation criteria, which was
sent to common user interface software vendors to
collect information about their products.
The results of the survey of software vendors
include a detailed breakdown of each product’s
performance against each of the evaluation
criteria. The vendors who participated in this
survey were Endeavour, Ex Libris, Follet,
Fretwell-Downing, Innovative Interfaces,
MuseGlobal, OCLC, SIRSI, WebFeat, and
VTLS. The results of this survey indicate that
many of the criteria evaluated are established
features which are present in the majority of
products, with other features maturing rapidly.
Common user interface capability, including
broadcast searching, is readily available from a
number of products, as are many complementary
features. Survey responses were returned from
December 2002 to April 2003 and collected
information on current and next-release versions
of each product.
Overall, the standard of the common user
interface software products reviewed was very
high, with products supporting on average around
75 per cent of the evaluation criteria. MuseSearch,
ENCompass, MetaLib, Single Search and
WebFeatare the five highest scoring common user
interface software products. Products with average
or below average scores may have adequate
functionality for many libraries, depending on the
extent of their requirements. The presence of an
open source product (Site Search) in this review
should be an encouraging sign for libraries that
have previously avoided common user interface
software products on the grounds of cost.
Literature review
Over the last decade, librarians have continued
both to laud the common user interface as an
answer to the problems of searching the dozens of
databases available in many libraries, and to
lament the difficulties in implementing a search
interface across a wide variety of database
communications protocols. The literature falls
into three main categories:
(1) articles discussing the potential of common
user interface software, which tend to include
“wish lists” of desired features;
(2) articles discussing database linking protocols
and the technical details of developing
common user interface software; and
(3) case studies describing the implementation of
a common user interface in a particular
library.
Wish-lists of desirable features
The “wish list” branch of the literature provides
suggestions as to which features of library portal
software, in addition to common user interface
capability, are most desirable to librarians. The
consensus about the role of a common user
interface is that it should be able to broadcast a
single search to a variety of databases in different
locations and in different formats and to unify the
results from these databases, before presenting
them in a useful order after de-duplicating the
results.
Boss (2002) provides an exhaustive list of
desirable features in a “sample request for
proposals for a portal interface product”.
Pulkowski (2000), in his report on the
development of the UniCats system, highlights the
use of similar technologies for controlling data
presentation, client authentication and cost
control, and he predicts that this technology will
become increasingly important in developing
customised charging for database usage. Other
features that library portal products can include
are:
.personalised client accounts;
.customisable design;
.inter-library loan capability; and
.online reference (chat) services (Arant and
Payne, 2001).
While the common user interface concept is most
often praised in the literature, a recurring criticism
of the common user interface is that searching
might only work at the lowest common
denominator (Bradley, 1995; Payette and Rieger,
1997; Wilson, 2001). Each individual database has
its own unique fields, controlled vocabularies,
commands and syntax. Elements that all databases
share may be searchable through a common
interface, but unique features of an individual
database may be sacrificed in the process. This
concern highlights the importance of database
communication protocols and database linking to
the development of common user interface
software.
Database linking
The literature relating to database communication
protocols and database linking is largely technical
in nature, and describes practical efforts to develop
techniques for searching across heterogeneous
A comparatve review of common user interface products
Daniel G. Dorner and AnneMarie Curtis
Library Hi Tech
Volume 22 · Number 2 · 2004· 182-197
183
To continue reading
Request your trial