Digital reference: trends, techniques, and changes

Citation

Tunender, H. (2002), "Digital reference: trends, techniques, and changes", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 19 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2002.23919dac.003

Digital reference: trends, techniques, and changes

Heather Tunender

This ACRL sponsored pre-conference, held at the ALA Midwinter 2002 on January 18, 2002, brought together three people who are influential in the digital reference revolution: Joe Janes (Assistant Professor, The Information School of the University of Washington), David R. Lankes (Information Institute of Syracuse (IIA)), and Steve Coffman (manager of Product Development at Library Systems and Services (LSSI)). Their task was to address trends, techniques and changes in digital reference. The following is a summary of each presentation.

Joe Janes gave an overview of the current "State of Digital Reference" (DR). DR is still in the experimental phase although some libraries have been providing DR for five to six years. Janes feels that libraries should move on to phase 2 because we have been experimenting for "too long." Phase 2 is for defining new services. He emphasized the need to define how we do DR and where DR fits into the services libraries already provide. He identified areas that require more exploration:

• •

  The DR reference interview. The interview is important, but it "should not get in the way."

• •

  Who are the users (patrons) and what is the level of their DR use? If we discover where DR users are, we will know more about how to market to them. Who do we think will be best served by DR?

• •

  What kind of financial, physical, software and staff resources are required? Do the benefits of DR outweigh the costs of providing it?

• •

  How do we train and who is most suited to providing DR? What are the core competencies?

• •

  Do we have the technological infrastructure necessary?

• •

  Issues of privacy.

• •

  Institutionalization of DR is necessary. DR is now thought of as an add-on, but libraries need to "think of it in the context of what" we are already doing.

What we are experiencing is an "evolution of practice" according to Janes. We have multiple modes of reference: e-mail, chat, in-person. Each mode has its own strengths and weaknesses. We need to determine what works best in each mode. With that we will also need to define the measures of success. So, what are we trying to accomplish, which mode will help us accomplish it, and how do we know when we are successful?

For the future, Janes expects more experimentation, more new software for DR, new modes of communication, an increased focus on evaluation and more critical examinations of DR.

David Lankes – Introduction and the Digital Reference Cloud Plus Standards to Make it Work

The second speaker, David Lankes, addressed the necessity and current state of DR standards.

The third speaker, Steve Coffman, discussed the cost of "virtual reference" (VR) and gave an overview of VR delivery methods. Perhaps most beneficial was Coffman's explanation of the three types of virtual reference software:

1. 1.

   Chat. Chat software, such as AOL's Instant Messager, allows the simple exchange of text messages. Advantages of using simple chat software for VR are its low cost (often free), simple interface and installation, minimal training requirements and easy accessibility (most packages do not require client downloads.)

2. 2.

   Remote Control Software (RCS) (e.g. Convey's OnDemand, Expertcity, Inc.'s Desktopstreaming). Remote control software allows the librarian to control the patron's browser as well as communicate using chat. Using the patron's browser eliminates any authentication concerns as long as the patron has already been authenticated (e.g. proxy, campus dial-up connection.) Coffman noted that disadvantages to this software include the required client download, and the fact that when the librarian is controlling the patron's browser to, say, illustrate an online database search, the patron's bandwidth can impact service time. Also, the software was not designed for answering questions (it was designed for technical support), there are no scripted messages and it "can be expensive." Coffman addressed some additional advantages which include:

3. 3.
   • •

     The option to add a persistent hyperlink into the RCS from every library Web page.

   • •

     The ability to take over the patron's browser wherever she/he encountered a problem.

   • •

     Audio and video capability (disadvantages: available bandwidth can negatively impact audio/video delivery; speakers/microphones required).

   • •

     OnDemand has scripted messages.

4. 4.

   Web Contact Center Software (e.g. LSSI's Virtual Reference Software and MCLS's 24/7 Reference). Web contact center software allows the patron to "call" a librarian simply by clicking on a hyperlink in the library's Web site. The two can then chat and co-browse the Web (share the same Web pages.) The software requires "little or no download" and it was designed for answering questions online, therefore features such as question queuing, scripted messages and session transcripts are available. Disadvantages include the expensive price, platform limitations, software complexity and the inability to "co-browse all databases." When the patron calls the librarian, she/he is presented with a split browser screen. The right side of the browser is where the chat messages are exchanged and the left side is the shared browser window. The subscribing library determines the default Web page displayed in the left-hand "browsable" side of the window. Because the default Web page is always the same, the patron can not pick up where she/he encountered the problem.

Coffman's presentation on the cost of VR involved an illustration of the Erlang C formula. He sensibly recommends we use a Web accessible "Workforce calculator" instead of the raw formula. He also recommends solutions for handling the increased reference activity libraries will inevitably experience due to VR.

Note: Presenters' PowerPoint slides available at: http://quartz.syr.edu/ACRL/

Heather Tunender(tunender@lib.uci.edu) is the Electronic Reference Services Librarian at the University of California, Irvine Libraries, California, USA.