Minutes - LoT WG Meeting 6/22/2010
Judith Hiott, Jeannie Colson, Betty Thompson, Edward Smith, Tracy Holtman, Margaret Sylvia, Christine Peterson, Kevin Marsh, Mike Avila, Beverley Shirley, Jay Velgos
1. Welcome from Judith
a. Kevin will post minutes from this meeting and previous meeting on the website.
a. The University of North Texas is doing a heuristic usability study of the Library of Texas interface. The study will conclude by the end of August.
b. EZProxy subcommittee exists and is ready to get started. Two group members have been unsuccessful at integrating Library of Texas widgets into their EZProxy server.
c. ILL Project and Transition.
i. Most of the Phase 1 Pilot Group is operational and the next phase is underway
ii. OCLC’s progress so far has been on the ILL component, not on the federated search component. Goal is to have more on the federated search from them later this summer.
iii. Tom Miller at OCLC is the lead on this project.
d. New contract with IndexData includes additional logging capabilities and the ability to track usage statistics for individual libraries. The first complete month of the new logs will be June, and Kevin will send a copy of the compiled usage stats to the WG when it is available.
e. Kevin has met with staff from the UT School of Communications who indicate they are willing to assist with marketing the Library of Texas both with printed materials as well as videos.
3. Federated Searching Communications Plan
a. Initial run-through and comments at this meeting; additional comments will be welcomed for the next week or two.
b. Audience section
i. No comments from group
c. Message section
i. Plan must be useful not only for Library of Texas now, but for future platforms in the future as well.
d. Channels section
i. Suggestion for training webinars or series of webinars
ii. 45 minutes or so in length – no more
iii. Provide CE credits for participants if possible
iv. Work with libraries to determine what kinds of webinars and online training they find useful and worthwhile
e. Process section
i. We need to solicit outside, expert assistance, especially in the areas of branding, usability, and marketing.
ii. Suggestion for onsite training that focuses on concrete outcomes. For example, by the end of the training, the librarian will have customized materials and an LoT widget on their website.
iii. Suggestion to break of training into tech-centered (getting the widget on the website) and functionality/usage.
f. Products section
i. Assignment for group: Develop a 1-3 sentence “elevator pitch” to describe the Library of Texas.
1. Some examples include: “Helps you do research late at night,” “Faster results, better grades,” “This library never closes,” or “Search anywhere, anytime.”
2. Consider separate pitches for different audiences: reference librarians, library staff, and adult learners.
ii. Develop a 10 to 15 minute pitch to provide more details for librarians.
iii. Longer training? Maybe half-day?
1. Cost-benefit analysis for librarians: “Is learning how to use LoT worth a half-day?” For some, maybe not.
2. 15 minutes is definitely worth it
iv. Consider a progression from 15 second pitch to a 15 minute pitch to a 45 minute webinar to a half-day training.
1. One goal is achieving familiarity with the service. What is Library of Texas?
2. The other goal is actual training on how to use it and use it well
3. People don’t want to search; they want to find.
v. Facebook page
1. Include widget
2. FB page must be pushed and marketed or else no one will see it or use it
3. Should it be geared to librarians at IP-authenticated libraries to ensure automatic authentication?
4. Is a live-feed of recent searches possible? Is it desirable?
vi. Suggestion for mobile version of the Library of Texas
vii. Informational Flyers to promote the service
1. Printed versions and PDF distribution
2. Provide a means for libraries to customize with their own logos and contact information
3. Bookmarks are popular and effective
4. Postcard-size can be convenient and hit on important bullet points
5. Comment: “No librarians will ever turn down a nice poster.”
6. Should there be an interactive webinar specifically for customizing these promotional materials?
7. Tri-fold brochures tend to NOT get read
1. Single-task-based videos would be popular, such as genealogy or medical searches
2. Videos should be 5 to 10 minutes maximum. And 5 is better than 10.
ix. Timeline for Communications Plan and Communications Materials
1. Flexible for now
2. This will depend on cooperation with UT School of Communication and other enlisted experts
x. QUESTION: Will this communications plan be time and effort well-spent? Especially if the Library of Texas current platform is to be superseded with OCLC Navigator’s federated searching?
1. Group may want to start with more generic materials at first
2. Interface- and usage-specific materials can wait until the UNT team reports on their usability study
3. Comment: let’s go ahead and do the videos since everything will change eventually anyway.
4. Schedule Next meeting
a. September 2010
b. Kevin will post a Doodle poll for specific date and time
c. Plan is to use GoToMeeting for a more interactive teleconference