NorCal IUG November 2017

This past Friday I carpooled down to Santa Clara to attend the 2017 NorCal IUG meeting. Two of my coworkers were presenting on their recent project of updating the public catalog, our WebPAC, so I wanted to support, as well as learn some new things about managing library systems.

Beautiful day to visit Santa Clara University with the peeps for NorCal IUG! #librarylyfe @librarymail @grandmothersbraid

A post shared by kelci m kelci (@bibliobebe) on Nov 17, 2017 at 9:40am PST

The NorCal IUG agenda covered diverse topics and the presentations were informative and inspiring. From Bill Schickling, rep from Innovative, I learned that Innovative is looking to release automatic renewals in Q2 of 2018 probably, and he summarized Innovative's development strategy as a choice between
Build it?
Buy it?
Partner?
which can be parlayed across most industries. Bill gave the group updates about Innovative's future as a company and the PPORs (product plan of record) for Sierra and Polaris.

The individual presentations were great. From Gem Stone-Logan I got pumped up to try scripting in Python. She herself has only been using Python for about a year and is self taught, and encouraged the use of the active listserv and Google in general. Her presentation, which is available on her website, gave a basic roadmap on how to get started. I really feel encouraged to try!

View out of a window near the large conference room on the 3rd floor of the SCU library. 

Next up was John Boggs, who mostly talked about automating tasks using MySQL as a way of saying "if I can do it, you can do it." I don't have experience with MySQL but my take away with Boggs's presentation, as well as Stone-Logan's, is that a lot of the work of systems librarians is repetitive--report pulling every month, for example--so the smart thing is to automate these tasks. And there is "more than one way to skin a cat" when it comes to automating.

Rounding out the presentations were Justine Withers and Anders Lyon, my colleagues from Gleeson. They gave the attendees an overview of our funky system of running Encore and WebPAC from the same interface (keyword goes to Encore, and every other type of search goes to our WebPAC, which we call Ignacio). They gave an overview of the aims of their project refreshing the interface, the function audit they performed, and how they are building buy-in and communicating with stakeholders. Although I already knew a bit about their project, I learned a lot--I thought it was especially wild that they discovered a pretty nice looking beta WebPAC sitting in the sandbox, already branded with USF logos and refreshed! I look forward to the day they give a similar presentation to library staff.

After lunch we got a chance to tour the SCU Automated Retrieval System (ARS). This system occupies where the old library once stood, and the current library is a new construction.

Library futures pic.twitter.com/MxQUnaPHjm

— gina (@librarymail) November 17, 2017

In the afternoon I attended the Circulation and resource sharing break out session. I learned of a lot of new types of collections public libraries are lending (hot spots, gardening tools, Chromebooks...), as well as new patron policies and types (forgiving fines, teacher p-types, etc.). That type of discussion was a refreshing nuts and bolts view of what libraries do that have a direct impact on the lives of their patrons, which is a far cry from the higher level topics at some academic library conferences. We also discussed the loss of the CSUs from Link+, and how the loss of the Claremont colleges may have been even a bigger blow. The conversation flowed freely, was respectful, and was well facilitated. I took special delight in the fact this session was held in SCU's bibliographic instruction lab (the equivalent to our Electronic Classroom) so I got to see what type of technology they use, how the room is configured, and how the room is secured. I was surprised to learn someone stole all the memory out of the iMacs in that lab at some point!

Picture of one group table of iMacs gathered around a wall-mounted screen. 

Picture of SCU's electronic classroom, with empty wired tables in middle, podium at front, projector screen at front, and one group table of iMacs gathered around a wall-mounted screen. 

Another picture of SCU's electronic classroom, with multiple group tables with iMacs and wall-mounted screens. iMacs sit down in a recessed area to create a better line-of-sight to instructor. 

All in all, I spent a wonderful day in the Santa Clara Library meeting with colleagues in the field and coworkers from back home. The campus is gorgeous and spread out, while the library--only about 10 years old--is spacious and well conceived. It is a model example of the learning commons framework.

Ebsco Study on Usability for Students with Print Disabilities

Yesterday a group of us at work got together to participate in the webinar EBSCO Accessibility Study on User Experience, presented by Jill Power, Ebsco technical product manager.

This webinar was not only enlightening regarding the ways in which students with print disabilities use Ebsco products, but in general how they do research, navigate graphic user interfaces, and what tools they use to do so. 

Here is a brief digest of the findings:

• WCAG compliance ≠ accessibility 

• Accessibility ≠ WCAG compliance 

(For example, strident use of alt tags with images can impede the use of a webpage if they do not bring value to the visually impaired user. Ask yourself the question, what value do these alt tags bring, or are they repetitive?)

• No vision users use screen readers

• Low vision users use magnification and text to speech 

• Accessibility a journey, not a destination--there is always room for continue improvement 

• Ebsco Discovery Service (Fusion at my library) provided a positive experience for the participants in the study. The ease of doing some tasks should be improved, but overall, users could get what they needed and trusted the academic scope of the content. 

• Manual testing should still be employed, regardless of advances in automated testing. Each user drew on different tools and techniques and insight into those behaviors was enlightening. 

One visually impaired student said she really likes Google because the result display is high contrast and very well organized. I think as librarians we tend to think of reasons to use or not use Google for different reasons (mostly related to the content of the search results, questions of credibility of results, and mercenary driving forces like Google ad revenue). However, the Google result page still displays dark blue, dark green, or dark grey text on a white background (high contrast), unlike many sites that have switched to light grey text; furthermore, the Google result page is not muddied with floating ads or pop-ups urging viewers to sign up for an email list or another call to action, which often confuses the screen readers that visually impaired users employ.  

Screenshot of Google result page from August 3, 2017

The takeaways:

• Focus on accessibility rather than compliance

• Take a hands-on approach

• Remember the student's goal (write the paper)

• Consider the overall experience 

Some free tools:

• Accessibility tools that come in Mac OS 

• WAVE browser plug-in 

• NAVD screen reader -- free alternative to JAWS

After the webinar, a few of us discussed the webinar's takeaways in context of our workplace, and our role vs. that of the office of Student Disability Services. Sounds like there is interest in hosting the SDS folks for a library presentation to find out more! 

My own personal takeaway is to look into changing the text color on my blogs and website to improve the contrast--I am guilty of using grey text for both! 

Libraries and Accessibility for Print Disabilities

I have been working with the campus communication and marketing office to revise our print user guides, and I became concerned about the accessibility of the back panel (featured to the left) for people with print disabilities. Print disabilities are types of disability that affect people who are blind, vision impaired, dyslexic, etc. Due to the low contrast of white on yellow, people with vision impairment could not read the text. While the campus office of communication and marketing attempted to address my concern in one of the revisions, it became clear they do not employ standards of accessibility for the university's print marketing materials.

Accessibility is a diversity and inclusion issue. What campus departments are responsible for accessibility outside the office of student disability services or academic support services? Surely the web services department is a stakeholder, but what about the office of communication and marketing, IT, or the library?

This question got me interested in the issue of libraries and accessibility for print disabilities. To continue my education on the topic, I watched a video from the Spring 2017 CNI Project Briefings meeting called Advancing Accessibility through Libraries.

Advancing Accessibility through Libraries from CNI Video Channel on Vimeo.

One accessibility issue facing institutions of higher education and their libraries involve print disabilities--making course texts and library materials accessible to students with print disabilities. This is in addition to many other concerns, chief among them audio accessibility, which comes into play with captioning videos and providing transcripts for live panels and discussions; however, this is a specific topic for another post.

Image from Brailleworks.com

When it comes to providing reliable machine-readable text for students with print disabilities, texts must be scanned with OCR and then fine-tuned so that a DAISY Talking Book or the JAWS software, as two examples, can read the text aloud to the student. In the past, in my department (the Reference & Research Services Department), vision impaired students were often limited to doing research in the full text databases because the texts could be read by JAWS or the built-in database tool. If the student wished to consult a print book, they would need to build in extra time for the Student Disability Services office to scan the book or chapter.

In the CNI presentation, Laura C. Wood points out it is important to build collaboration within institutional departments (e.g. student disability services and library) as well as between institutions. The future may hold some exciting partnerships building shared repositories of accessible materials (e.g. scans of most used text books or files containing captioning of videos), which could eliminate double efforts. Also in the CNI presentation, Laura C. Wood communicated Beth Sandore Namachchivaya's part in Beth's absence, which reports on an exciting project between HathiTrust, Internet Archive, and University of Illinois to offer DAISY files for some of the textual items held in HathiTrust. The project is just getting going but it seems like it will be able to avoid copyright issues by nesting the DAISY files under the texts, which will not be viewable in general searches, and only available to print disabled readers when they are logged in.

Next week a group of us from the library will be participating in the EBSCO Accessibility Study on User Experience webinar. Considering that we subscribe to EDS as our discovery service and have therefore shifted to Ebsco as a vendor for many of our databases, I am glad they conducted this user study and very much look forward to seeing what they found out.