Warning: This page has not been updated in over over a year and may be outdated or deprecated.
community:surveys_and_statistics:understanding_discovery_platform_usage_survey_2021
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
community:surveys_and_statistics:understanding_discovery_platform_usage_survey_2021 [2022/01/14 17:42] – lmgonzales | community:surveys_and_statistics:understanding_discovery_platform_usage_survey_2021 [2022/01/14 20:34] (current) – lmgonzales | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Understanding Discovery Platform Usage Survey, 2021 ====== | ====== Understanding Discovery Platform Usage Survey, 2021 ====== | ||
- | The Understanding Discovery Platform Usage survey provides insight into the discovery platforms used by potential and existing VuFind® users. The aim of the survey was to understand the platforms being used by these cohorts, including the features | + | The Understanding Discovery Platform Usage survey provides insight into the discovery platforms used by potential and existing VuFind® users. The aim of the survey was to understand the platforms being used by these cohorts, including the features users liked, disliked, and wish they had in their existing discovery platforms. The survey results will be used to inform potential directions for future feature development of the VuFind® platform and inform future discussions with potential funders. |
- | The survey instrument was sent to specific discovery communities (VuFind® and Blacklight) as well as the general library open source community (via Code4lib and other mailing lists) and responses were collected | + | The survey instrument was sent to specific discovery communities (VuFind® and Blacklight) as well as the general library open source community (via Code4lib and other mailing lists) and survey |
===== Survey results ===== | ===== Survey results ===== | ||
+ | Over half of survey participants (59%) indicated that they used VuFind® and one-third indicated they used EBSCO Discovery Service. Just over one-quarter of participants (27%) indicated that they used multiple discovery platforms, with VuFind® and EBSCO Discovery Service being the most commonly cited combination of platforms used. Sixteen percent of participants indicated using other platforms not listed in the list of answer options. Other platforms used included Aspen Discovery, Enterprise (SirsiDynix), | ||
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
- | {{ : | + | When asked about the approximate size of discovery platforms currently in use, 37% of participants indicated using platforms with 500,000 to 2 million records, and 27% of participants indicated using platforms that contained more than 50 million records. The majority of participants (71%) indicated using platforms of 500,000 records or more, and 29% of participants indicated using platforms containing fewer than 500,000 records. |
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
- | {{ : | + | Survey participants searched primarily for online and downloadable documents and for printed / physical materials that could be loaned (92% and 86% of participants, |
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
- | {{ : | + | Over half of survey participants indicated that the discovery platforms they used were designed for either higher education users (i.e., faculty, staff, students) or for the general public (88% and 51% of survey participants respectively). Six percent of participants indicated that the discovery platforms they used were designed for either government staff, internal use by the hosting organization, |
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
+ | |||
+ | The top discovery platform features liked by survey participants included faceted navigation, real-time integration with an ILS, the ability to define and customize search types and fields, support for integration with third-party search APIs, standards-based export support (e.g. OAI-PMH, Z39.50, etc.), and internationalization. Features liked by less than one-third of survey participants included alphabetical heading browsing, bento box searching across multiple sources, authority record integration, | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | The top discovery platform features survey participants wish they had included authority record integration (41% of participants), | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | The top discovery platform features not important to or not used by survey participants were social features, notification functionality, | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== About the survey participants ===== | ||
+ | Survey participants were primarily from academic libraries (n=39), with some users from public libraries (n=3), special libraries (n=1), research institutes (n=1), and other institutions (n=5) such as library consortia comprised of either only academic libraries, only intergovermental agencies, or a mix of academic, public, K-12, and special libraries. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Most survey participants were employed as library staff (n=25) or in other occupations such as IT specialists (n=12), software developers (n=8), educators (n=2), or researchers (n=2). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Survey participants resided in the following countries: | ||
+ | |||
+ | | **Country** | **Number of participants** | | ||
+ | | Argentina | 1 | | ||
+ | | Canada | 1 | | ||
+ | | Czech Republic | 1 | | ||
+ | | France | 1 | | ||
+ | | Germany | 9 | | ||
+ | | India | 3 | | ||
+ | | Ireland | 1 | | ||
+ | | Italy | 1 | | ||
+ | | Malaysia | 2 | | ||
+ | | New Zealand | 1 | | ||
+ | | Saudi Arabia | 1 | | ||
+ | | Spain | 1 | | ||
+ | | Sri Lanka | 1 | | ||
+ | | Sweden | 1 | | ||
+ | | Switzerland | 1 | | ||
+ | | Turkey | 1 | | ||
+ | | United States | 20 | | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
---- struct data ---- | ---- struct data ---- | ||
+ | properties.Page Owner : | ||
---- | ---- | ||
community/surveys_and_statistics/understanding_discovery_platform_usage_survey_2021.txt · Last modified: 2022/01/14 20:34 by lmgonzales