Ask Us! Creating, Assessing, and
Improving Chat Reference Services
in Your Library
Kim Pittman
Gabriel Gardner
Chat @
UMD
Docutek, 2004:
“Robust” co-browsing experience not preferred by
patrons; interface difficult for librarians
Chat @ UMD
2005, Trillian, Librarian view:
Unreliable, single-librarian
monitoring
2009, Library H3lp:
Embedded widget woes
2005, User view
Google Voice for
texting, 2009:
Chat @ UMD
2011, Library H3lp:
Pop-out widget
2011, Twilio:
SMS Gateway integrated
with Library H3lp
AskMN (QuestionPoint):
24/7 coverage
Software is a means…
•
Client
–
OS / web-based
–
License
–
Features
•
Offline messaging
•
Message logging
•
File transfer
–
Protocol support
•
Protocol
–
Groups
–
Security
–
Audio/VOIP
–
Video
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?
Why assess?
•
Understand usage patterns
•
Gauge user satisfaction
•
Evaluate quality of service
•
Identify potential improvements in
Statistics
668
2,321
2,959
2,474
2,441
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 1 2 3 4 5Statistics
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
YearSurveys
•
Exit survey to gauge patron satisfaction
•
Additional survey to evaluate awareness of chat
Surveys
• Created using Google
Forms
• Guerilla survey testing
• Link delivered by
macro and included in
chat box
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
Discussion
•
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?
Widget Generation
Location, location, location
LibGuides
Staff profile pages
Databases
Never at rest
•
The librarian is in
•
A librarian is in
Where else?
•
404s
•
Link resolver pages
•
Course management system
•
Library catalog
Training
•
“Think like a user” exercise
•
Transcript review
A picture is worth…
•
Screencasting
–
In-person > screencast > text/audio only
•
Issues
–
Audio
–
Editing
… and video is even better
•
Shareability is key
–
Screencast.com (TechSmith)
•
Free
–
Jing (TechSmith)
–
Many others
•
Paid
–
Captivate (Adobe)
–
Camtasia (TechSmith)
URL shrtnrs
•
TinyURL, Bit.Ly, Goo.Gl, others
•
Essential for texting
•
Avoid line breaks
Shrtnr Bookmarklets
•
Short JavaScripts
•
Halve the time and clicks
To script, or not to script, …
•
Tools
–
Intra-app
–
AutoHotKey (f/oss, Windows only)
–
Keyboard Maestro (proprietary, Mac only)
… that is the question:
•
Pros
–
Fast
–
Easy
–
Accurate/consistent
•
Cons
–
Impersonal
–
Texting char. limits
“Outsourcing”
•
QuestionPoint: 24/7 chat coverage
–
A complete reference management system
integrating chat and email
•
Prospects
–
Greater coverage, potential cost savings
•
Perils
Discussion
•
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?
References, 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.
References, 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.