Appendix C
Results List Screen
Related Text from the Report

You are here: Union Catalog
Results for W-Titles= ( artificial intelligence ) -- sorted by : Year, then Author

Sort options : Year/AuthorAuthor/YearTitle/YearFormat/Author  Modify search | Filter
Select individual records using checkbox or Select All  |  Deselect All  
before acting: View Selected  |  Add to Basket  |  Save/E-mail  |  Create Subset
Records 1 - 10 of 24     No Previous Page 

[ Display Full Record]
Format: Book
Location: Display Full Record for locations and availability details.



Additional Results List entries would be displayed.
The number of entries per page would be configurable.







Results List Screen -- Text from the Report
  1. General Description
    The Task Force assessed options for the Results List screen that 1) appears immediately after a keyword search has been performed, or 2) after a user selects a heading from his/her Browse search results. While many ALEPH OPACS use a horizontal table display for the Results List, the Task Force recommends a vertical display of record elements similar to that used in several other ALEPH OPACS and in the current CC and SUL catalogs. This approach allows presentation in an easily readable layout. It appears that local Javascript programming has been used at some institutions to provide this optimal vertical results display; the Task Force feels this local development would be worth the effort.

    NOTE: The Task Force did not devote time to assessing the intermediate results screen produced by a Browse search. It was thought that there are probably few (if any) options for displaying these structured results. A fuller review of this should be undertaken at some point to assess any options that may actually exist.

  2. Screen Elements
    The screen begins with an indication to the user that they are searching the GUC; the search string follows this. Sorting options for the results set are presented next. Filtering options have yet to be determined and will have to wait until the system architecture is known and understood by Task Force members and a working model is available for testing purposes. Brief instructions for marking items and the actions to be taken with those items follow. The number of results is then provided along with navigational aids allowing the user to jump to a particular record or page through the results.

    The next section of the Results List screen presents a brief record for each item found. This brief record provides the system’s mandatory Results List Number and selection box. An explanatory, textual link to “Display Full Record” follows. The user can view the full record by clicking the number or the textual link.

    The brief title, author, publication information and format are then provided for each item as plain text. The Task Force feels providing any search redirect links (e.g. subject headings) at this level is confusing; those links should only be at the Full Record level.

    NOTE: No lengthy discussion concerning precisely what fields should appear on the results list for all formats of material (book, serial, music, etc.) was felt to be necessary at this time. As implementation of the GUC nears, those decisions can be made and can be based on decisions already made for the separate OPACS that will have already been implemented.

  3. Other Results List Issues

    1. Display of Location Information The Task Force has yet to determine how the location and availability of items should be presented in the GUC. Again, this is an issue that will need to be resolved fully once the system architecture has been determined and a working GUC is make available to the Task Force members. However, with regards to the Results List, this Task Force has determined that either explanatory text should be provided instructing the user to click “Display Full Record” to view the location information, or that a link should be provided that will take users directly to the location information that may appear on it’s own unique screen.

      There are several reasons a separate locations screen may be desirable in the union environment; 1) the list of locations could be quite lengthy and require quite a bit of screen space; 2) the display of all segments of a particular location could be quite long (e.g. “University of Florida Health Science Center Library Periodicals”) and may be able to be presented more effectively, 3) having locations on a separate screen might provide sorting opportunities that would not be available otherwise, and 4) if the location is an institution-specific URL, for example for a subscription journal, the URL could possibly be associated with the authorized location/user group. However, with so many unknowns, the Task Force felt it would be unproductive to speculate further on this issue at this time.

    2. Display of URL’s URL’s present a unique challenge in the GUC. The Task Force is concerned about displaying subscription URL’s in the union environment because it is sure to frustrate users when they are denied access to restricted resources. However, URLs that link to publicly accessible resources, for example government documents, would certainly be valuable to include. Again, it is not known at this time what special options may be possible regarding this issue in the union environment; if a designation can be made between subscription and publicly accessible URLs, if the URL must be part of the full view created from the MARC record or if the URL can be associated with a location’s holdings information, etc. Therefore, the Task Force cannot make any firm decisions regarding URL display in the GUC at this point.

    3. Local OPAC Presentation of Location and URL Information While the Results List is an area that may end up needing to have some differences between the local catalogs and the GUC, maintaining as much continuity as possible seems desirable. The Task Force recommends that location, availability, call number and URL (and its associated notes) be included in the brief view provided on the Results List of an individual catalog where practicable. This physical and “virtual” location information should appear to the user along with any physical location information after as few clicks as possible. However, if doing so would require a very lengthy display for each result entry, then the information will need to be placed elsewhere; the amount of screen space devoted to any single entry on the Results List should never be long.