The purpose of the Interface Features Forum was to take stock of interface developments subsequent to CoDGeR's 1998 preferred interface forum and statement (5/98). At that time we thought we might move wherever possible toward a single interface for bibliographic database presentation. However, we now understand we will likely continue to acquire resources in multiple interfaces. Recognizing this, the 2001 Forum proposed to 1) assess which interface is best for particular databases/audiences, and 2) develop some standards by which we can continue to judge interfaces.

For the forum, CoDGeR developed a comprehensive checklist of interface features which participants used to "grade" the interfaces. CoDGeR members reviewed the grades and comments submitted and synthesized the results into the attendant grid.

More qualitative comments that provide additional insight:

General and Searching Aspects:

• FirstSearch, more intuitive now, used to be nightmare, has a comfort factor, generally good, clean, but index is hard to browse
• Ovid - navigation clunky, linking OK, good subject mapping
• EbscoHost - a bit confusing, not as crisp, doesn't default to full text of article
• SilverPlatter - clunky
• Cambridge - clean interface, easy to navigate, good display of results

Retrieval of Records:

• While FirstSearch received a high score for retrieval of records, a source sort is needed. Cross-file searching and retrieval of records would be desirable.
• Again under First Search, it is disapppointing that system doesn't function with citation management software.
• OVID is very good overall, except that it doesn't have a chronological sort option.
  

Technical aspects:

• FirstSearch: Some customization that can be accomplished by local administrator
• Ovid: Some customization, but must go through vendor
• EbscoHost: great deal of customization that can be accomplished by local administrators
• SilverPlatter: some customization, but must go through vendor
• Cambridge: Customization possible, but must go through vendor

Questions at the Forum about how to grade, testing of remote access, browser choice, number of databases available from a given interface, cost, and special features (thesauri) argue that the next forum could aim for even more comprehensiveness or that an attempt to review interface qualities should be abandoned since interfaces are always moving targets and the issues grow ever more complex. CoDGeR will consult with other relevant groups when considering whether to repeat this exercise next year.

Individual comments at the forum also revealed that selectors consider cost to be secondary to important features like service to users and exploding subject headings. It is apparent from the forum and comments on the grading forms that key features considered most important vary somewhat by subject and by selector, thus validating our decision to provide a graded grid rather than a single preferred interface choice.

Other Useful Links:

Yale University Library | Research Workstation
Library Management Council | M&PSA Staff Resources
Other Library Committees | LibLicense