Phase 2: An Assessment & Evaluation of Public Library Websites in AustraliaDiane L Velasquez, PhDRAILS10Canberra, ACT9 July 2014

1

Agenda•Introduction•Methodology•Findings – Phase 2•Findings – Phase 1 & Phase 2•Conclusion

2

Introduction•Public Library website is the e-branch•PL web evaluation are a gap in literature

•PL web evaluation if in literature is anecdotal

•Web sites equal presence and marketing•Few PL evaluations:▫McMenemy in Scotland▫Powers in Pennsylvania

3

Marketing of Public Libraries•Convenience for patrons/clients•Excellent customer service via web page

•Evaluating the web page for usability

•What makes a good public library web site?▫Ease of use▫Good information▫Well designed

4

Group Project•Five Students in four states for Phase 2▫QLD▫SA▫TAS▫VIC

•Initially 25 public library web sites each

•Given the methodology•Asked to do a short literature review

•Worked individually instead of as a group

5

Methodology•Powers, 2011▫Pennsylvania project replicated▫Had 20 basic questions▫Added two regarding joint use

•Included branch libraries•Some consistency issues were apparent

6

Methodology•The Yes/No questions•Used Excel to process results•The rest of the data qualitative•Project data turned in on 4 November 2013

7

Information Gathered•Physical & Mailing Address•Telephone Number•Email •Hours of Operation•Library Manager/Director•Joint Use Facility – Yes/No•If yes, what type?

8

Information Gathered (cont’d)•Catalogue Link•State Databases or other links (i.e. Trove, etc.)

•Date web page last updated•Mixture of text and images •Promotion of events and programs on the pages

•Search box available •Place to provide feedback about the site

9

Information Gathered (cont’d)•Free from spelling and grammatical errors

•A place to ask for help or assistance from the library

•Consistent logo, branding, or picture that is library specific (not council specific)

•Use of Web 2.0 tools (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Historypin, etc.)

10

States Represented by PLs1; 1% 12; 7%

13; 8%8; 5%

22; 13%

18; 10%

98; 57%

ACT NSW NT QLD TAS VIC WA

11

Branches

59; 42%

80; 58%

Yes No

12

Joint Use Facilities14; 10%

131; 90%

Yes No

13

Joint Use Facility Type

10; 71%

4; 29%

PL/School PL/Other

n = 14

14

Yes/No Questions

15

Catalogue State Dbase

Site Update

Text/Image Promo Onsite

020406080100120140

108 102

52

124105

64 70

120

4867

Yes No

Yes/No Questions (cont’d)

16

Search Box

Feedback Correct Spelling

Ask for Help

Logo Web 2.0020406080100120140160

76

48

131

22

71 64

96

124

41

150

101 108

Yes No

Number of Total YesesYes No of PLs Yes No of PLs0 10 6 151 10 7 172 19 8 153 20 9 194 11 10 135 22 11 1

17

Ineffective web site

18

Effective Website

19

Phase 1&2 Results

20

States Represented by PLs1; 0%

85; 22%

13; 3%

70; 18%

65; 17%22; 6%

24; 6%

113; 29%

ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA

21

Branches

200; 51%

193; 49%

Yes No

22

Joint Use Facilities104; 26%

289; 74%

Yes No

23

Joint Use Facility Type

36; 35%

47; 46%

7; 7%9; 9% 4; 4%

PL/School PL/Other PL/TAFEPL/Comm Ctr PL/Gallery

n = 104

24

Yes/No Questions

25

Catalogue State Dbase

Site Update

Text/Image Promo Onsite

050100150200250300350

262234

99

273 253

131159

294

120 140

Yes No

Yes/No Questions (cont’d)

26

Search Box

Feedback Correct Spelling

Ask for Help

Logo Web 2.0050100150200250300350

13196

314

69

128165

262297

79

324268

228

Yes No

Findings•Majority had catalogue links (67%)•Most web sites were locked down and hard to access

•For a customer focused industry, most of the sites were basic and hinder customer service

27

Findings (cont’d)•No encouragement of contact with patrons

•Staff names were not on the web sites

•Many of the sites were not well designed

•Not user friendly •Sites didn’t encourage users to ask questions

28

Majority of Sites Missing•Site up to date: showing a date when it was last updated (25%)

•Search box available for the library information (33%)

•Feedback mechanism for the library site (24%)

•Ability to ask for help on the site (18%)

•A library image or icon (33%)•Use of Web 2.0 tools (42%).

29

Majority of Libraries •Catalogue link (67%)•Correct spelling (80%)•Link to state/national databases (Trove and a state library website) (60%)

•Events promoted on the site (64%)•Mix of pictures and text (69%)

30

Conclusions•Websites need to be updated•Council lockdown of library websites need to be eased up

•Up-to-date marketing•Web 2.0 Tools – more than Facebook

31

Future Research•Phase 3 has just been completed •All Australian public libraries have been done

•Next phase will begin English speaking Canadian public libraries

32

Acknowledgement of Thanks• The student researchers are:

• Andrew Angus• Andree Brett• Michelle Chitts• Robin Costelloe• Lungile Dlamini

• Daniel Easterbrook• Catharine Kelly• Daniel Mason• Margaret Parker• Amy Vanner

33

Questions??

34