K.N. Au, chair of the Web Advisory Committee (WAC), highlighted changes in the upcoming Libraries website and walked PSC members through new elements. The current site contains 24 links off the top page, whereas the new site will contain 18 total links off the top page. The left sidebar panel of the new site brings up so-called content panels, which gives the site a "three-dimensional top layer."
The new page highlights links that were previously buried, including a quick search for reserves, a "connect from home" link on the top level, and "library tutorials" brought up one level. Additional text will be included under "library tutorials" when searchpath is ready. The panel for "faculty service" leads to existing pages rather than new content, indeed much content on the old Libraries page was reorganized for the new site rather than rewritten. The "bookmark" on the right side of the new page is similar to the previous "news and events" section, but the links are now active. The "Libraries Home" link is spelled out on subpages, rather than existing just as the logo image. The black bar on the top of the page includes the following sections: Ask a Librarian, Hours and Directions, Search Website, and Site Index.
The new site de-emphasized the e-journals page, which was moved one-half a level lower, additionally, the "advanced users" page has been removed.
The members of PSC responded enthusiastically and positively to the new site, including its user-friendly language and its congruence with the Rutgers site. Some minor recommendations included:
It was noted that there are some visible differences between IE and Netscape when the new site is viewed and that PSC had previously examined the Other Libraries Catalogs page and those changes could be folded in at a later time.
J. Boyle attended the PALCI spring members meeting. PALCI is currently struggling with database negotiations because the organization is new to the process, and there are other consortia in the state. PALCI also conducted a members survey in order to elucidate key concerns. Several issues emerged, including communications (PALCI plans to combine several disparate listservs into one) and the upcoming versions of software (which may be available in January 2005 with new search features but without journal article delivery capabilities). It was also announced that Cornell, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania have joined RAPID, a journal article deliver service. It was reported that Indiana University of Pennsylvania is the leading net borrower, followed by Rutgers. This however was not a concern, because Rutgers is also a large scale lender of materials.
Nine topical areas emerged from the members survey as possible future directions.
The areas of greatest shared concern included:
It was pointed out that the implementation of open URL is intended to be a gradual process, but that perhaps not all RUL faculty and staff are aware that this is the case, and increased communication is needed. At an open forum update meeting held at LSM for the New Brunswick Libraries, the following comments were offered:
D. Hoover and C. Pecararo continue to work on the project. The Committee needs to continue for at least one more semester to focus on issues of fine-tuning and education.
A few changes were proposed including removing a statement about ILS reimbursing lending libraries, since this information does not apply to patrons. PSPM 4 was updated as proposed.
Camden's Robeson library has combined the reference and circulation desks, which has proved useful for information sharing and accuracy. It was noted that Douglass Library was purposely designed this way. J. Boyle suggested holding the August PSC meeting at Douglass Library.
J. Gardner reported that in July workflows would begin generating bills to patrons whose materials are one year overdue. Additionally, the SHARES domestic lending fee will be in the $7-10 range. RDS web delivery of articles began in June.
A privacy screen demo took place during the course of the meeting. Looking at the monitor screen head on the screen is visible, while seen from the side it is much less visible. Two versions of the privacy screen were tested-the main difference between the two involves the mounting of the device. J. Boyle noted that Douglass, Camden, and Kilmer have tested the screen, with the notion that the Libraries may wish to employ them in focused locations that need them, or offer them to patrons when the search underway is clearly a private one. It was suggested that informed patrons could also request a privacy screen. It was stated that Camden rejected the screens after moving them around, and that patrons often removed them. It was decided that M. Wilson will consult the reference team leaders on the issue and J. Boyle will ask N. Borisovets about Dana's potential interest
The meeting was adjourned.