180

Appendix 1
M A R C field selection
criteria
A summary of the MARC fields selected for Okapi appears in Section 4.2.
These particular fields were chosen for the following reasons.
The author (100, 110 or 111) and title (245 or 240) are necessary because
the record would be virtually meaningless without them. They provide a
basic description of the item, but some of their subfields are not essential.
It was decided to exclude the statements of responsibility from the title
fields (see Section 4.3.1), and to use only the initials rather than the whole
forenames from personal name fields.
The Dewey number (082) and local spine label and site code fields are
essential in order to locate the item on the shelf.
The control number (001) is probably essential because it uniquely
identifies the record for maintenance purposes. It is not displayed to thegeneral user.
Several fields are particularly useful in creating an online catalogue
because of the contribution they can make to enriching the subject access.
Subject headings (083, 600, 610, 611, 650, 651), part titles (248) andseries titles (440, 490) are all included in the Okapi record mainly for thispurpose. They contribute whole phrases as well as separate words to theindex.
The added names (700, 710, 711) are important in searches for "known
items" as well as subject searches. Users frequently associate an item witha name other than the author. They also seldom know, or care, what amain entry is, and may not even know what an author is. Words andphrases from corporate names can often enrich subject access as well. For
example: Festival of Britain.

Appendix 1. MARC field selection criteria

181

Some subfields from publication (260) and edition (250) are included
because they can help users to make a selection when several similar
records are displayed.
The contents note (505) is only used for records with analytical entries,
see Section 4.3.3.
It was decided to include a simplified language code (from 008) toindicate whether an item was in English or not. This has not been used yet
but it would be to enable lists of stop words and/or articles to be language
dependent, and allow searches to be limited by language.
An abbreviated version of the DC edition note (509) was included at therequest of PCL Library's Technical Services Unit. It has not been usedyet.
The local accession numbers field indicates how many copies of a title areheld in each site library. The actual accession numbers are not currently
displayed to the general user, but would be used if Okapi was linked to acirculation system.

182

Appendix 2
Subfields used fromselected M A R C fields
This appendix describes which subfields are used from the selected
MARC fields. The subfield codes are converted into appropriate
punctuation marks (see also Section 4.5.1). The transfer of catalogue
maintenance from LOCAS to SWALCAP will involve some minorchanges. These changes will cater for the SWALCAP format of local
fields, and the use of SWALCAP control numbers for PCL records.
001 Control number
The control number is unique and identifies the record for maintenancepurposes. It is not displayed to the general user.
Examples: b7611264 (a BNB number)
lc78015124 (a LC number)
pc20041560 (a PCL number, other prefixes also in use)
0900948647 (an ISBN)008 Information codes
The 36-38th characters of the information codes field hold a language
code. This is simplified in the Okapi record to indicate merely if the item
is in English or not.
082 Dewey Decimal Classification numbers
Okapi uses $a (base number) and $b (segmentation points) separated by" $ " so that the segmentation information is retained. The $c (Dewey
edition) is discarded since 509 is used instead.
Example: '' $a309.2$b62$b09816$c18"
becomes:"309.2$62$09816"
083 Verbal feature headings
Where this field is present, $a is used to enrich subject access.
Example: "ftaEuropean arts. Surrealism, to 1966$bEssays"
becomes:"European arts. Surrealism, to 1966."

Appendix 2. Subfields used from selected MARC fields

183

100, 110, 111 N a m e m a i n e n t r y heading (i.e. a u t h o r )For 100, i.e. personal names, where the first indicator is 1,2 or 3 toindicate that the person has a surname, $a (surname) is used together
with the initials only of the other names ($h).
Example: "100.1$aLambert$hJean Clarence"
becomes:"Lambert J C "For 100 with first indicator 0 (for Kings and Popes) $a, $e and $f areused.
Example: "100.0$ajohn Paul$eII$fPope"
becomes:"John Paul II, Pope"For 110 and 111, i.e. corporate and conference names, $a, $c and $e areused.
Example: "11 OftaLibrary Association$cLondon and Home Counties
BranchftcArchitect-Librarian Working Party"
becomes:"Library Association. London and Home Counties
Branch. Architect-Librarian Working Party"
240, 245 Title
Okapi uses a 240 field only if the 245 has first indicator 0 indicating no title
access required. In this case the 245 field is ignored and 240 fta (uniform
title) is used instead.
If 245 has first indicator 0 then 245 $a only is used only if there is no 240.
If 245 has first indicator 1 or 3 Okapi uses the following 245 subfields:$a title proper%b other title information$i 2nd or subsequent title by the same author$j 2nd or subsequent title by a different author$k parallel title$1 enumeration, alphabetical designation and/or title of section
or supplement of serial
Example: "240$aNotes sur le cinematographe$rEnglish
245$aNotes on cinematographyftdRobert Bresson
Retranslated [from the French] by Jonathon Griffin"
becomes: "Notes on cinematography"
The exclusion of statements of responsibility is discussed in Section 4.3.1.

184

Appendix 2. Subfields used from selected MARC fields

248 Part titles
The following subfields are taken from 248:
%g number or designation of volume or part$h title of volume or part$i 2nd or subsequent title by the same author$j 2nd or subsequent title by a different author
250 Edition statement
Okapi uses 250 $a, edition statement, and $e, subsequent edition
statement, related to the appropriate title (245 or 248).
260 Publisher
Okapi uses 260 $b, publisher's name(s), and $c, date of publication,
related to the appropriate title (245 or 248).
440, 490 Series titles
Okapi uses 440 $a and 490 $a related to the appropriate title (245 or 248).
505 Contents note
The 505 $a contents note is only used for records with analytical entries.
As explained in Section 4.3.3, this is a compromise between dealing withsuch records properly or not at all.
509 DC edition note
If this field is present its contents are held in coded form.
600, 610, 611 Name subject headings
Subfields corresponding to those described for 100, 110,111 are extracted
from the name subject headings fields.
650, 651 LC topical and geographical subject headings
Where present these fields (fta only) are used to enrich subject access.
Example: "650 ftaCrime and criminalsftzKentftyHistory$xCollections"becomes: "Crime and criminals."
700, 710, 711 Added names
Subfields corresponding to those described for 100, 110, 111 are extracted
from the added names fields.

Appendix 2. Subfields used from selected MARC

fields185

Local fields
The spine label is extracted from 990 $a.
The site code(s) are extracted from 999 $a and held in coded form.
The accession numbers are extracted from 998 fta's. Level 1 takes
precedence over level 0 which holds old style numbers.
Example: "998:0 $aA6821526 Y7417536
998:1 $a21.0006364X 22.00037868"
becomes: "21.0006364X 22.00037868"

186

Appendix 3
Okapi record format
Field directory
The field directory contains the lengths of the nine variable length fields.
Each length is held in two bytes giving a fixed length directory of 18 bytes.
Neither the total record length nor the positions of the fields relative tothe start of the record are held since these can all be found by simple
calculations. For example, the total record length is the sum of the lengthsof all nine fields, plus 18 (the length of the field directory), plus two (forthe CRLF), rounded up to a multiple of four.
Field one: Author
The author field contains the subfields extracted from the MARC 100,110 or 111 field, if any. It may be empty if there was no name main entry
heading. Personal names are distinguished from corporate/conference
names by preceding them with the " | " and " $ " respectively (seeAppendix 4).
Field two: Main title
The main title field contains the subfields extracted from the MARC 240
or 245 field. Non-filing characters at the start, given by MARC second
indicator, are marked by " " (see Appendix 4).
Field three: Edition and publisher
The edition and publisher field consists of any 250 (edition) and 260(publisher) relating to the main title. If there is more than one publisher
they are separated by " / ".
Field four: Series and part titles
The series and part title field can contain data from several different
MARC tags in the following sequence:
440, 490, 248, 250, 260, 440, 490, 248,
505
The first 440, 490 will be series titles relating to the main title. They will

Appendix 3. Okapi record format

187

be followed by any part titles (248), each followed by any 250, 260, 440,
490 that relate to it. Non-filing characters at the start of fields are marked.
For records with analytical entries only, any contents note (505) will also
form part of this field, see also 4.3.3.
Field five: Added names
The added names field contains any names from MARC 700, 710 or 711
fields. Personal names are distinguished from corporate/conference
names.
Field six: Class marks
The class marks field contains the Dewey numbers from MARC 082
separated by spaces. Segmentation points are marked with a " $ " . The
first Dewey number is followed by the spine letters from the local 990
field.
Field seven: Accession numbers
The accession numbers field contains the accession numbers, from thelocal 998 field, separated by a single blank.
Field eight: Codes and control number
The codes and control number field contains the control number (from001) preceded by three fixed bytes of coded information.
The first byte is the site indicator byte which is derived from the local 999
field. A bit is set for each site which has at least one copy of the item.
The second byte holds the publication date minus 1750 (to enable it to fit
into one byte). The date also appears in field three or four, in its originalform from MARC 260 $c. Section 4.7 explains the reason for holding one
easily accessible date for each record.
The value of the third byte depends on the DC edition (from 509) andwhether the item is in English or not (from 008).
Field nine: Subject headings
The subject headings field contains subject headings extracted from
MARC 083,600, 610,611,650,651. Name subject headings are marked as
personal or corporate/conference.

188

Appendix 4
Special characters usedin the Okapi record
The Okapi record employs seven special characters which are described
below.
Five special characters ($A @ ) are used to prefix data of fivedifferent types in fields where the data type is not implicit. These prefixes
are used both by the indexing programs and by the online search
program. The indexing programs use the prefixes to generate appropriate
index entries depending on the data type. The online search program uses
the prefixes in order to display the data in an appropriate manner (seeChapter 7).
The two remaining special characters are a non-ASCII indicator ( \ )which is used to indicate accents, diacritics, etc., and a field terminator(#)•" | " (vertical bar) Personal name indicator
Personal names, whether authors, added names or subject headings, arepreceded by a " | " to indicate that they are names in the form of asurname with initials.
" $ " (dollar sign) Corporate/conference name indicator
Corporate or conference names, whether authors, added names or subject
headings, are preceded by a " $ " to indicate that they are names ofcorporate bodies.
" _ " (underline) "Don't index" indicator
Leading articles of titles, other non-filing characters denoted by MARC,
and volume or part numbers are preceded by a " " and followed by a
" A " (see below).
" A " (up arrow) Title-like indicator
Titles and subject headings that are not names are preceded by a " A " toindicate that they are to be indexed as text. This means that eachAppendix 4. Special characters used in the Okapi record

189

individual word and the whole phrase will be entered in the index. (Seealso Section 5.4.3.)"@" (at sign) Edition/publisher indicator
Each element of edition or publisher data is preceded by a "@". This is todistinguish such data from other non-indexed elements such as leading
articles and volume numbers, which enables Okapi to display it with anappropriate label.
' \ " (backslash) Non-ASCII indicator
MARC uses non-ASCII characters for accents, diacritics, digraphs andother letters not in our alphabet. For Okapi each non-ASCII character ispreceded by a " \ " to indicate that it should be ignored if it cannot be
displayed properly. Where there are appropriate alternatives available in
our alphabet these are held after the non-ASCII character and will be
displayed instead:i.e.

so-called Turkish i - > i
Polish L, 1
>L, 1
Scandinavian O, o - > 0 , oSerbo-croat D, d — > D , dThorn> T H , thDigraphs>AE, ae, OE, oe
Eth>th" # " (hash sign) Field terminator
Each of the nine fields in the Okapi record, including empty fields, isterminated by a " # " .

190

Appendix 5
General comments
received about Okapi
The following comments are from two students in a radio interview by
LBC (London Broadcasting Company), broadcast on 9 December 1984
at 2.30pm:"Much quicker and much easier. It's much more useful because you
can ask it to search for a particular subject, which you can't do on
microfiche, you have to look through the names and then throughthe titles. So that if you wanted a book on, say, Northern Ireland you
can put that into the computer and it looked. And if you wanted a listof books by a particular author it could give you those as well. So it'smuch more useful than the microfiche.""I find it easy to use, quicker to use than the microfiche, and theadvantage is that you don't actually need to know the exact book you
are looking for, you can search for a subject. I hope it becomes apermanent feature of the polytechnic."
The following comments are a selection of those received from most of
the 70 students interviewed in Riding House Street Library, mainly inresponse to the questions:"Can you think of any additional features you would like?""Have you any comments?"
Regarding additional features, they often said it was too early to havemuch idea, and they needed to use Okapi more to see possible
improvements. The answers are listed for each individual one after theother, because it is difficult to group them without losing someinteresting points. The students' verbatim comments are in quotes.
Observations and clarification by the interviewer are in square brackets.

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi

191

1. ''Straightforward, physically less tiring.'' [But she wanted some help
such as: the more specific you are the better the results. She thought
her topic was not specific enough ("social mobility Open University
Sets") and that this was why the computer offered her many books —in fact the opposite was true: her search was so specific that there wasno match, and Okapi did a "Hyper-OR" (Section 6.5) and displayed
records containing only some of her terms. She also wanted a bigger
keyboard.]
2.

"More fun. Black key not obvious." [This student was looking for a"sub-topic" and thought that the subjects were very librarianoriented, so tried to find a subject which fitted with this idea.]

3.

"Would need to type faster to be able to use it. Didn't dare press thekeys, didn't know what might happen. Might like it in the end, butneed time to learn it."4.

"Only quicker once you know how to operate it."5.

[Puzzled by several editions of same book:] "they are all under thesame class number." [Didn't like Blue key, which redisplays previous
input.] "Microfiche gives too many book details [numbers —presumably accession and control numbers, which Okapi does not
display] but allows you to scan, unlike the computer. Ought to tell
you if the book has been taken out or not, and also say on which floor
it is. With 'LAW' [many postings] it ought to give all the classnumbers it covers; I want it to be oriented towards the library shelves
when nothing is found as well as when too many things are found.
Ought to include the indexes at the back of the books." [He wondered
about people with no experience with computers — he had a lot.] "Ifthere is only one author, there is no point going through author
index. How can you search for two authors at once?"

6.

"The microfiche is ordered. If you get the right fiche microfiche iseasier. Takes time to get used to computer. In the list of authors I
didn't understand which number was meant, tried the one on the left
and it worked!"

7.

"Getting the right fiche is a physical effort; but with thecomputer you have to type instead. I feel it is more useful for
subjects than authors/titles. I was a bit taken aback by Green key
for RETURN."

192

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi

8.

"Liked coloured keys. More fun."

10.

"More efficient. Why does it do words one by one? I put 'nonverbal' and I had to go through all 'non'... It could ask which word is
the most important."

11.

[Started off rather suspiciously:] "It won't bite? Card physicallylaborious. Fiche needs mental concentration and painful for theeyes. I would like bookshelf browsing [on the computer]. Abstracts
should be added, to say under which angle the topic is treated. Also if
there is a stupid title with no subject, how do you find it? I would
like to search external databases with it — when are you going to put
the whole world in it? In this computer world, not done yet!"[Asked why irrelevant things came up. With only the word "strike" : ]"there are probably millions of books about strikes in the library!"

12.

"Much easier than I expected although I realised I made a mistake[wrong author from reading list] because the computer didn't find
it. Are you going to keep it in here?"13.

"Convenient" [said that he did the same search three times] "tomake sure that the computer gave the same result."

14.

" I like the coloured keys but would like them labelled as well. Toomuch trouble looking at screen and keyboard at the same time. If
you know computers it might be easier and quicker. The things I
didn't find I assumed they were not in the library" [He thought that
if the author is common, the computer didn't ask for its initials. He
put in something like "Smith and Green". The interviewer
explained (and showed) that the computer was expecting only one
author.]16.

"I wanted to see how it works and played with it and felt confident.''[Only tried author/title.] "I hadn't seen the backspace."

19.

"Neat. I had problems with the coloured keys but because I didn't
read it!"20.

"It gives more alternatives than the microfiche especially if you
have only a few words of the title."

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi

193

21.

"Logical, straightforward, modern. If I was good at typing I would
use it all the time. So for the moment microfiche is quicker although
I will use the computer again."

23.

"Needs getting used to because of typing but I liked the coloured
keys (except for Black key where you have to look at the keyboard). I
didn't give enough parameters so the computer couldn't findanything."

24.

"Fiche makes me dizzy. Didn't like coloured keys because I am
already familiar with keyboard, but it is a good idea. Better than
Surrey system [in-house system] — gives more information, goesback and forth more easily. But I would like more detailed subjects.
Catalogues don't tell you if the book criticises the subject or reviews
it or what."

25.

"More fun. Coloured keys OK." [Found out about derived
title/author key (see Fig. 7.21).]

26.

"More efficient. Fiche painful. But the Aston system [Geac] hadlarger VDUs and keyboards so was easier to manipulate, and the
instructions on the wall were useful."

28.

"Fiche quicker than computer. I can't be bothered typing in andwould rather use the fiche."29.

"I prefer the computer. What about articles?" [Journals.]30.

"Precise, more efficient. Coloured keys easy. Subject search gives
very good results."

31.

"Instructions easy to use, but if I could type I would like it better."

32.

"Instructions and coloured keys clear, it tells you what to do."

33.

"Less fiddly than microfiche. The more used the faster. It also tells
you about the books in other libraries. The librarian says 'tryanother library'. I didn't understand why I got six titles with only
two relevant ones."

35.

"Excellent, more efficient than microfiche, saves time and lesslaborious. What would take 3 hours with the microfiche takes 20

194

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi
minutes with the computer. It also helps when you have a rubbishy
reading list where everything is mixed up."36.

"Dead easy, thorough, titles and subjects are in it. It's possible to doa subject search easily, in case the book is out."

39.

"Thorough, saves time, friendly."40.

"Gave me more information, faster. Instructions need getting used
to."

41.

" I was intimidated [by technology] but felt I mastered it. I'll never
use the microfiche again. It's great. Suggestion: add essays andmagazines to the file."

42.

"Great, clear, quicker. I felt quite at ease. I use the microfiche as
little as possible. I hope it stays."

43.

"Keyboard needs getting used to, and finding the right instruction.
But I would use it rather than microfiche."44.

"Better than microfiche. Microfiche scattered about and difficult toread. Also I couldn't remember the author or title of a particularbook and could do a subject search and found my book!"

46.

"Instructions easy to follow, good results (even if not useful for me
right now, useful in the future). Better results than expected
because gave other related books. I looked in printed subject index
there was nothing under my heading (for both computers andmusic, only under each word). I might find out the limitations of thecomputer later." [Understood number of postings for each word(see Fig. 7.18).]47.

"I used it because the microfiche was busy. Daunting technology.
Would use it again now that I've done it... Clear instructions."[Obviously not thrilled.]

48.

"Find microfiche quicker to use, but computer gives more useful
related information, unlike microfiche. Gives you other items
outside the reading list which is useful. [Unintended: author/title
key gave some false drops.] I would use whichever is available,
pretty equal, I am not fussy."

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi

195

50.

"Better, straighforward."

53.

"Better than SWALCAP, which seems older design. Better
keyboard, better display. Microfiche awful. Only one machine?"

54.

"Necessity of reading instructions, takes time, have to know.
Advantage of knowing how to type." [Although she said she liked it
and would use it again.]

55.

"Less fiddly than microfiche. Very simple, good idea. Slowcompared with Wordstar where you can type ahead."57.

"Practical, saves time. Fiche always in the wrong place. Didn't getanything, but assume it was because reading list is very bad. Typing
skill a problem and also psychological attitude to computers. I haveto get used to them and I am just beginning."

58.

"More information on subject than microfiche which gives titles
only. Subject searching is better on the computer, it is like scanningbookshelves. Difficult to know if I made a mistake or if it is because
there are no books in the library. It would be better if there weremore books in the library. It is a bit like fishing in the dark the firsttime. It needs a bit of learning and concentrating. Opinion depends
on success." [His search was not terribly successful, he thought it
was incredible, and significant, that there was so little on "neurotics
and society". Pointed out space bar not the same type of key as thecoloured keys. He didn't use the space bar for some time and typed
things like "neuroticismsociety".]59.

"No need to flick through. All the books are together. Simply laidout. Can be used by people who don't know about computers."

60.

[Keyboard problems:] "getting your fingers together."

61.

"More efficient. Microfiches never in order or missing. I couldn't
find my book on the fiche, did on the computer. The instructions are
straightforward, no need to press RETURN." [Computing
student.]

196

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi

63.

"It asks what you want in a friendly manner; I would use it rather
than microfiche. Wonderful. Suggestion: label the coloured keys sothat you don't have to read the screen."64.

"Much prefer it to microfiche. [First-time user.] Clearer, gets
answer even if rough area. Please keep it." [Said difference between
Black/Red keys not obvious.]

65.

"Better than microfiche, easy to read. Lists all books for one author.
Only problem is typing."

66.

"Quite good, provides information, gives different choices if cannot
find it [author/title search tree — see Fig. 7.21]. Tried subject aswell, it's fine."

67.

"More efficient, but I didn't have any problems, it went OK so I
may be biased. Instructions clear."

68.

[Subject searching:] "More specific than microfiche [which is too
general]. More machines!"69.

' * Straight to the point, very easy to use. Even if you have just ideas inyour head it gets something. Does everything for you except getting
the book."70.

"Easy to start. Don't have to bother anybody. It's great."71.

"Microfiche more effort, instructions very explicit."

72.

"Less chance of missing something, more thorough. Need one oneach floor, in as many libraries as possible." [Only complaint:]"Black Key not obvious."

74.

"Clearer, shows many books. Can I take it home? Ought to givebooks outside as well."75.

"Very, very good and simple. Gives other things. Made me think.
It gave me subjects I never thought about. I am confident themachine tells me what is there. Never liked subject searching in
microfiche. Microfiche seems dead. Very helpful for subject."[Liked coloured keys and hyper-OR, although didn't know why
rubbish came at the end of it and asked why, and also complainedAppendix 5. General comments received about Okapi

197that] "it doesn't tell you when the search is over. Need moremachines on each floor."
76.

"Better, more efficient, any more machines?"

77.

"Simple, straightforward."

78.

"Tells you what you want to know quickly."

79.

"Really good, no hassling librarians, no hanging about, efficient."

81.

"More flexible, more pleasant." [General complaint about catalogues:] "need more keywords per book, subject headings more
extensive" [Also wanted a printer:] "spend most of the time writing
down."

82.

"More modern." [Computer science student.] "More interesting
than microfiche." [Doesn't use libraries much, since they haven't
got what he needs.]

83.

"OK for some things. When you know your book the microfiche isfaster. Typing is a problem. Light-pen quicker than having to wait
for sequence of screens. Microfiche easier to scan and swing around.
Did a subject search, rather disappointing but mainly because there
isn't much in the library."

84.

"Physically easier, just pressing a button, thing comes up. It is NOT
a computer, you don't have to learn it!" [But he liked the Sussex
system better, he had used it for two years, especially the browsingback and forth, and the fact that you have to specify what you arelooking for (e.g. author or title or subject — see Section 7.4.2) at the
beginning. He found Okapi's author/title search misleading, and thecoloured key descriptions not obvious at the first go.]85.

"It gives more results, more information, even if the query is vague,
it gave me 10 or 15 books for my title search."

86.

[This person suggested that rather than providing a printer,something could be provided, like that available on cash machines,
which would print very little (just class numbers, for example).]87.

"Brilliant, magic. I'll use it rather than microfiche. It tells you what
to do. I have problems with the alphabet so don't like the microfiche.

198

Appendix 5. General comments received about Okapi
As long as you can read, the computer can be used. With themicrofiche you also have to get the other fiche, physicalmanipulation. With the computer everything is there, no need to
fiddle around. I first used the author/title search, then the subject
search which brought much more information."88.

''Microfiche makes me dizzy. But I would rather use the microfiche
for author/title searches. Computer easier for subject." [Had trouble
with "Karl Popper" in subject search. Asked why she couldn't get
more records. Interviewer explained about "Karl" AND 'Topper",and did "Popper".] "It ought to cope with that."

199

Appendix 6
Results of 70 interviews
1 Students' background and experience
Age
19-25
26-30
31-35
36-50

Sex
M
F

50
10
8
2

41
29
—
70

70
CourseYear

Social Sciences
39
Business Studies 11
7
Media Studies
Psychology
3
Accountancy
33Social Work
2
ComputingW o m e n ' s Studies 1
U r b a n Planning
1

1st
2nd
3rd
PhD

70

21
21
26
2
70

Appendix 6. Results of 70 interviews

200

Keyboard experience

Computer experience

Frequent
Moderate
None

Regular computer user
Course-related only
None

25
28
17

20
3 9

(i)

11
70

70

Previous OP AC use

COM catalogue use

None
47
Okapi
15
SWALCAP 4Other
4Frequent
Moderate
None

49
19
2
—
70

70

[Other OPACs used were: Sussex University Library (modified Geac),
Camden Public Library (Geac), Aston University Library (Geac),
Surrey University Library (in-house system), Adelaide University
Library, Australia (in-house system).](1) Course-related computer experience seemed fairly minimal in most cases, 10 students
made unprompted derogatory comments: "I feel an idiot with computers", "I am notgood at it", "men use it!", "I hardly learnt anything", "it was very short", "veryvaguely", etc.

Appendix

6. Results of 70 interviews

201

2 Questions about Okapi
Q u e s t i o n : " W h e n w i l l y o u feel c o n f i d e n t a b o u t u s i n g O k a p i ? "[Since no prompting was done, some people gave a length of time, someestimated the n u m b e r of times Okapi would have to be used in order tofeel confident, and others replied ' ' n o w " . ]Now

13
6 2 % within 5 minutes

1 minute
2 minutes
5 minutes

16

10 minutes
15 minutes
30 minutes

23
5

2-3 times
4-5 times
10 times .

5
1
1

2 hours
2 days2
1

2 weeks . . . .
1 month . . . .
several months

2
1
1
63

(3)

Q u e s t i o n : " D i d y o u l i k e t h i s c o m p u t e r c a t a l o g u e or n o t ? "
Yes:
No:

03
7

70
Question: "Why/why not?"Easier than microfiche:
Quicker than microfiche:

25
26

N o t easier than microfiche:3
N o t quicker than microfiche: 5

Q u e s t i o n : " W o u l d y o u u s e it a g a i n ? "

Yes:
No:

67
3

(1) Five of these people qualified their answer thus:—"Now, BUT for learning to type properly."70(2) One person answered: "15 minutes to understand the keys,
45 minutes to understand HOW it works."(3) The first 7 students were not asked this question.

Appendix 6. Results of 70 interviews

202

3 Questions about their search
Question: "What did you come with/were looking for?"
Author(s)Title(s)Subject(s)

X
•

.
X

41
12

X
X

X
•
.
•

4
4

X
•

X
X

X
•
X
•

(52)

(47)

(19)

70

^
3
(i)

3

Question: "Did you find what you wanted?"
Yes:
Partially:
No:

40
17
13 (2)
70

Question: "What did you write down/keep?"Class

AuthorX

Tit!

Publisher42•

1 Q ( 2 )

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

.

(51)

(6)

(7)

X
X

4
3
X

1
1

(1)

70

(1) Three students just wanted to "see how it works"(2) Only 13 people said they didn't find what they wanted, but 19 people didn't write
down/keep anything. One explanation is that the students know the class number(s)(probably only one or a few) where their usual books are. Several students said they justmemorised the class number to go to the right shelf. Even when they did write down theclass number, very often it was an incomplete one (without the spine letters, or only thepart after the decimal point).

203

Appendix 6. Results of 70 interviews
4 Some cross-tabulation

D i d you like Okapi?
Yes

No

Total

4
3

67
3

Would you use it again?

Yes
No

63
0

Previous OP AC use

None
Okapi
SWALCAP
Other

44
12
3
4

3
1
1
2

47
13
4
6

Computer experience

None
Course-rel
Regular

9
34
20

2
5
0

11
59
20

Keyboard experience

None
Moderate
Frequent

14
25
24

3
3
1

17
28
25

COM catalogue use

None
Moderate
Frequent

2
16
45

0
3
4

2
19
49

Sex

M

F

35
28

6
1

41
29

Age

19-25
26-30
31-35
36-50

47
8
7
1

3
2
1
1

50
10
8
2

Did you find what you
wanted?

Yes
No

37
16
10

3
1
3

40
17
13

Total

63

7

70

Partially

Would you use it again?
Did you find what you
wanted?

Yes

No

Total

Yes
Partially
No

39
17
11

1
0
2

40
17
13

Total

67

3

70

204

Appendix 7
Analysis of 96 user
sessions
Length of sessions

average length: 10 minutes

Length(in minutes)

3 or
less

4-6

7-9

10-12

13-15

16-38

No of sessions

13

23

21

19

7

13

(96)

Searches per session — average: 4 searches per session
No of searches

1

2

3

4

7-28

No of sessions

27

11

21

12

14

Types of search input
TI Title only
AU Author only
AT Author/title

23 ( 6%) 0.2 per session
35 ( 9%) 0.3
190 ( 47%) 2.0

SI
SU

Total specific item
Subject

248 ( 62%) 2.5
155 ( 38%) 1.6

Total searches

403 (100%)

Sequence of searches per session
62 sessions contained 1 search state(s) )212) see below)

Total 96 sessions(96)

Appendix 7. Analysis of 96 user sessions
One search state
AT
SU
AU
TI

36
20
4
2
—
62

205

Two search states
AT,
AT,
AU,
SU,
AT,
TI,
SU,
TI,

SU
TI
SU
AT
AU
SU
TI
AT

Three search states

7
4
3
2
2
1
1
1

T I , SU, AU
AT, SU, AT
SU, AT, SU
AT, AU, SU
SU, AT, AU
SU, AU, SU

1
1
1
1
1
1
—
6

21

Number and type of match by type of search processed
Specific itemAT
1 hit
> 1 hit

51
49

no match

90 (,)

Subject

TI

AU

1 word2 words 3+ words

69

60

10

26

7

28
2
5

34
30
-

27
-

29

0

-

42

104

124

37

55

49

190
match
partial match
hyper-OR

Use of HELP key and BLACK key (end of session)
The HELP key was used 27 times in the 96 sessions.
The BLACK key was used properly in 48 cases, wrongly in 77 cases.
It was often used wrongly several times in the same session.
Some users didn't use it at all.
(1) The title and author figures include title only and author only searches PLUS theauthor/title searches with no match. (The system then tries author only and title only,
following the search decision trees, see Chapter 6.)

206

Appendix 7. Analysis of 96 user sessions

Spelling mistakes (in 96 sessions, 403 searches):
Title
Subject
Author

21 in 213 TI or AT searches = 10%
14 in 155 subject searches =9%
12 in 225 AU or AT searches = 5% (1)Author input mistakes (225 author searches)
Two or more authors entered :(e.g. "tagaki and platt")
Forename(s) or initials entered with surname:(e.g. "P.R. Wonnacott", "Ralph Turner")

21 cases
20 cases
41 cases (18%)

Title input mistakes (213 title searches)
Journal title or conference name entered :User typed more than was allowed:(without realising it)

2 cases
3 cases
5 cases (2%)

Author/title input mistakes (190 searches)
Author and title mixed up in title " b o x " : (e.g. "an introduction to law by p. harris")
Author entered in both boxes:(e.g. "Tricker", GREEN key, "Tricker")
Title in author box or vice versa or both:-

3 cases
2 cases
3 cases
8 cases (4%)(1) This does not mean that people had less trouble with spelling authors' names than titles
or subjects, since the figures are for whole search statements. Titles and subject
statements usually contain several words, whereas authors' names are usually only one
word long. The percentage error rate would look very different expressed in terms ofwords. (See also below.)Appendix 7. Analysis of 96 user sessions

207

Subject input mistakes (155 searches)
No space between words :(e.g. "nuclearenergy")
Previous input not cancelled :(e.g. "celibacysexual abstinence")
Strange punctuation :(e.g. "influence-of-neurotic-behaviour-on-social-skills")
Problems with personal names as subjects :(e.g. "Karl Popper" or "T.S. K u h n " )3 cases
3 cases
6 cases (1)5 cases (1)17 cases (11%)

There were also three occurrences of a spurious " 1 " or " 2 " at the
beginning of the string searched for (resulting from character being
repeated when key pressed too hard in response to previous screen).
[System fault.](1) System fault rather than a user's mistake.

208

Appendix 8
Okapi logging results
The log contains 3912 searches which were carried out between 28
November 1984 and 22 January 1985, i.e. 28 working days.
Time during which Okapi was used/not used per day
Okapi was actually in use for 59 % of the time it was made available.
When in use, specific item searching occupied 56% of the time andsubject searching occupied the remaining 44%.
Types of search
Title only
Author only
Author/title

283 ( 7%)503 ( 13%)1458 ( 37%)(

Total specific item
Subject

2244 ( 57%)
1668 ( 43%)

( 62%) ) sessions

Total

3912 (100%)(100%) ) 76%) )( 9 % ) ) figures( 4 7 % ) ^ from96 user( 38%) Jsee
Appendix

Analysis of 1652 subject searches
Average number of terms per search expression: 2.2
No of terms:
1
No of searchstatements:497% of total no of30
subject searches:
No of ANDs:
ANDs with no hits:
ANDs with some hits: Average no of hits:
No of hyper-ORs:(1)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

603

319

154

48

23

6

2

36
502
105
395

19
267
157
109
8.1
157

9
1.6
3
152
48 23
41
114
23
36
6
0
7.5 1.2 41
23
113

0.4
6
6
0
6

0.1
2
2
0
2

30.5

-

(1) An AND on three or more terms which fails is always followed by a hyper-OR (unlessinterrupted).

209

Appendix 9
Annotated and edited
extract from the log ofan Okapi station
C ** Start
T 850110115132
S SCR2U1
E +14
S SCR3
U AN ESSAY ON GOVERNMENT| G MILL | G J | G

Date and time.
Screen 2: choice of search type (see Fig. 7.5)
Option 1: "specific item" search,chosen after 14 seconds reading screen.
Specific item input screen (see Fig. 7.8).

TITLE, AUTHOR, INITIAL (GREEN key (" G") betweeneach).
E +22
22 seconds entering search keys.
0 ESSAMILL [1] EssaMill (2)Okapi tries 4/4 title/author key andfindstwo postings,
E +2
taking 2 seconds for the search,0 (2)and displays "2 books found".
U |G|G|R
Two depressions of the GREEN key, then RED key (" | R")user displayed both the records.
C IXR: (0)BR: (0) FR: (2)(No index recs, no brief recs, 2 full recs.)
E +36
User spent 36 seconds looking at the records.
S SCR3RED key returns to Screen 3
U AN ESSAY ON GOVERNMENT | R which still displays previous search.
T 850110115426
User pressed RED to return to
S SCR2
Screen 2,
U2
and this time chooses a subject search
E +7
after 7 seconds.
S SCR7
Subject search input screen (see Fig. 7.13).
U PENOLOGY | G
E +9
Search fails, nearest match not displayed,
O penology [2] penombra (1)E +1"No books found".
O (0)
U |B
"BLUE key to enter another search".
E +5
S SCR7U PENOLOGY|B
Previous subject search deleted by BLUE key (" B").
E +2
S SCR7

210

Appendix 9. Annotated extract from the log of an Okapi station

U PRISON SYSTEMS | G[3 dels]
E +14
0 prison [1] prison (63)systems [1] systems (2368)
E +2
P AND
E +4
0 (1)
U |G|RC IXR: (0)BR: (0) FR: (1)S SCR3
U | G HOWARD | G [1 dels] J | G(After several more searches)
U |X
T 850110120320
C ** Finish - duration 708 sec(s)New subject search, user made 3 corrections,taking 14 seconds to enter the query.
Okapi finds both words,(2 seconds),
performs an AND operation,
which takes 4 seconds
and finds one posting,which the user displays.

Author search for HOWARD J..

BLACK key (" \ X") to finish