Ask Us! Creating, Assessing, and Improving Chat Reference Services in Your Library - Kim Pittman Gabriel Gardner
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ask Us! Creating, Assessing, and
Improving Chat Reference Services
in Your Library
Kim Pittman
Gabriel Gardner
0 AskUs!
Chat @
UMD
Once upon a time in 2004(ish)…
1 AskUs! - History
Docutek, 2004:
“Robust” co-browsing experience not preferred by
patrons; interface difficult for librarians
Chat @ UMD
2 AskUs! - History
Chat @ UMD
2009, Library H3lp:
Embedded widget woes
2005, User view
2005, Trillian, Librarian view: Google Voice for
Unreliable, single-librarian texting, 2009:
monitoring Slow delivery time
3 AskUs! - History
Chat @ UMD
2011, Twilio:
SMS Gateway integrated
with Library H3lp
2011, Library H3lp: AskMN (QuestionPoint):
Pop-out widget 24/7 coverage
4 AskUs! - History
CREATE 5 AskUs! - Create
Software is a means…
• Client • Protocol
– OS / web-based – Groups
– License – Security
– Features – Audio/VOIP
• Offline messaging – Video
• Message logging
• File transfer
– Protocol support
6 AskUs! - Create
… to an end 7 AskUs! - Create
Discussion
• If you have a chat service, what criteria did
you use to select it?
• What features are most important to you in
a chat service?
• http://z.umn.edu/arldaskus
8 AskUs! - Create
ASSESS 9 AskUs! - Assess
Why assess?
• Understand usage patterns
• Gauge user satisfaction
• Evaluate quality of service
• Identify potential improvements in
promotion, usability, and service quality
10 AskUs! - AssessStatistics
Chats per year, 2007-2011
3,500
3,000
2,959
2,500
2,321 2,474 2,441
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
668
0
1 2 3 4 5
11 AskUs! - AssessStatistics
30%
Chats as a percentage of FTE
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
12 AskUs! - AssessSurveys • Exit survey to gauge patron satisfaction • Additional survey to evaluate awareness of chat and reasons for non-use 13 AskUs! - Assess
Surveys
• Created using Google
Forms
• Guerilla survey testing
• Link delivered by
macro and included in
chat box
14 AskUs! - AssessOur exit survey results 15 AskUs! - Assess
Phase 2 results 16 AskUs! - Assess
Phase 2 results: Chat non-users
Chat users Chat non-users
17 AskUs! - AssessPhase 2 results: Chat non-users 18 AskUs! - Assess
Phase 2 results 19 AskUs! - Assess
Other evaluation methods
Transcript analysis
• Quality of answer: completeness & accuracy
• Compliance with RUSA guidelines/use of reference interview
• Librarian behaviors and communication strategies
• Role of teaching & learning
Focus groups/interviews
• With non-users
20 AskUs! - AssessDiscussion
• What chat evaluation techniques have you
used at your library?
• Would you recommend these to others?
• If you haven’t implemented chat evaluation
at your library, why not?
• http://z.umn.edu/arldaskus
21 AskUs! - AssessIMPROVE 22 AskUs! - Improve
Widget Generation
Naked LibraryH3lp widget
23 AskUs! - ImproveLocation, location, location
LibGuides
Databases
Staff profile pages
Library homepage
24 AskUs! - ImproveNever at rest
• The librarian is in
• A librarian is in
● No UMD librarians availableWhere else? • 404s • Link resolver pages • Course management system • Library catalog • Mobile site
Training • “Think like a user” exercise • Transcript review • Emphasis on service quality, not mechanics
A picture is worth…
• Screencasting
– In-person > screencast > text/audio only
• Issues
– Audio
– Editing
– File output
28 AskUs! - Improve… and video is even better
• Shareability is key
– Screencast.com (TechSmith)
• Free
– Jing (TechSmith)
– Many others
• Paid
– Captivate (Adobe)
– Camtasia (TechSmith)
29 AskUs! - ImproveURL shrtnrs
• TinyURL, Bit.Ly, Goo.Gl, others
• Essential for texting
• Avoid line breaks
• Click stats (bit.ly, goo.gl)
30 AskUs! - ImproveShrtnr Bookmarklets
• Short JavaScripts
• Halve the time and clicks
• Available for TinyURL, Bit.Ly, and Goo.Gl
31 AskUs! - ImproveFrom this 32 AskUs! – Improve
To this 33 AskUs! – Improve
To script, or not to script, …
• Tools
– Intra-app
– AutoHotKey (f/oss, Windows only)
– Keyboard Maestro (proprietary, Mac only)
– Macro Express (proprietary, Windows only)
34 AskUs! - Improve… that is the question:
• Pros
– Fast
– Easy
– Accurate/consistent
• Cons
– Impersonal
– Texting char. limits
– De-professionalization?
35 AskUs! - Improve“Outsourcing”
• QuestionPoint: 24/7 chat coverage
– A complete reference management system
integrating chat and email
• Prospects
– Greater coverage, potential cost savings
• Perils
– Local vs. non-local Qs
36 AskUs! - ImproveDiscussion
• What tools (free or otherwise) do you use
to improve the user or operator
experience?
• What training techniques or exercises have
you found most effective?
• http://z.umn.edu/arldaskus
37 AskUs! - ImproveReferences, pt. 1
• Bailey-Hainer, B. (2005). Virtual reference: Alive and well. Library Journal, 130 (1) (2005), pp. 46–47.
• Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., & Dickey, T. J. (2008). On the trail of the elusive non-user: What
research in virtual reference environments reveals. Bulletin of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology (Online), 34(2), 25.
• Connaway, L., & Radford, M. L. (2010). Virtual Reference Service Quality: Critical Components for
Adults and the Net-Generation. Libri: International Journal Of Libraries & Information Services, 60(2),
165-180. doi:10.1515/libr.2010.015
• Duinkerken, W., Stephens, J., MacDonald, K. (2009) The chat reference interview: Seeking evidence
based on RUSA's guidelines: A case study at Texas A&M University Libraries. New Library World,
110(3/4) 107-121.
• Hughes, A. M. (2010). Adherence to RUSA's Guidelines for Virtual Reference Services is Below
Expected in Academic Libraries. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 5(4), 105-107
• Kwon, N. (2007). Public library patrons’ use of collaborative chat reference service: The effectiveness
of question answering by question type. Library & Information Science Research, 29(1), 70–91.
doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2006.08.012
• Maness, J. M. (-2007). The power of dots: Using nonverbal compensators in chat reference.
Proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Science & Technology,
Joining Research and Practice: Social Computing and Information Science 44.
• Nahyun, K., & Gregory, V. L. (2007). The Effects of Librarians' Behavioral Performance on User
Satisfaction in Chat Reference Services. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(2), 137-148.
38 AskUs! - finisReferences, pt. deux
• Passonneau, S., & Coffey, D. (2011). The Role of Synchronous Virtual Reference in Teaching and
Learning: A Grounded Theory Analysis of Instant Messaging Transcripts. College & Research Libraries,
72(3), 276-294.
• Pomerantz, J. (2006). Peer review of chat reference transcripts: Approaches and strategies. Library &
Information Science Research, 28(1), 24-48.
• Price, J. B. (2010). Screencasting on a Shoestring: Using Jing. Reference Librarian, 51(3), 237-244.
doi:10.1080/02763871003792030
• Radford, M. L. (2006). Encountering virtual users: A qualitative investigation of interpersonal
communication in chat reference. Journal of the American Society for Information Science &
Technology, 57(8), 1046-1059
• Radford, M. L., Connaway, L., Confer, P. A., Sabolcsi-Boros, S., & Kwon, H. (2011). "Are We Getting
Warmer?" Query Clarification in Live Chat Virtual Reference. Reference & User Services Quarterly,
50(3), 259-279.
• Ruppel, M., Fagan, J.C. (2002) Instant messaging reference: users’ evaluation of library chat. Reference
Services Review, 30(3), pp.183 – 197
• Thompson, S. (2010). To Script or Not To Script: Or, The Challenge of Being Both Efficient and Personal
when Interacting with Virtual Reference Patrons. Reference Librarian, 51(4), 363-366.
doi:10.1080/02763877.2010.503315
• Zhuo, F., Love, M., Norwood, S., & Massia, K. (2006). Applying RUSA guidelines in the analysis of chat
reference transcripts. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13(1), 75-88.
39 AskUs! - finisQUESTIONS? 40 AskUs! - finis
Kim
kpittman@d.umn.edu
@kmbrlyp
Gabriel
gardnerg@d.umn.edu
@7xgardner
CONTACT
41 AskUs! - finisYou can also read
