4
2.
Work
with
other
groups,as
appropriate,
such
as
the
Digital
Interface
Group
(
)for
implementing
changes
to
the
e-
process.
Leverage
existing
expertise
and
service/resource
management
processes
to
add
efficiency,
integration,and
different
points
of
view
and
expertise
to
the
redesign
and
development
process.
3.
Recognize
that
websiteredesign
and
development
is
an
ongoing
process
that
needs
to
reflect
changing
user
needs
and
changing
technologies
and
not
a
discrete
and
massive
project
occurring
every
3-
years.
Develop
a
version
schedule
for
incremental,
ongoing
changes.
Schedule
at
least
two
websiteversions
annually.
4.
Identify
and
prioritize
websitefunctionalities
int o
coherent
and
coordinated
websiteversion
releases.
5.
Recognize
dependencies/interrelationship
to
other
developments,
such
as
the
selection
of
a
new
open
source
public
access
catalog
for
VALE
that
would
be
a
strong
candidate
for
the
new
public
catalog
interface
for
RUL.
Other
dependencies
include
integration
with
services
offered
via
OIT
(Sakai,
myRutgers,
etc. ),
changes
to
RUcoreetc.
,
OTHER
ISSUES
Several
remaining
issues
point
to
possible
future
activities:
1.
At
the
request
of
the
Core
Team,
Jeanne
Boyle,
the
remaining
principal
investigator
for
this
project,
filed
a
successful
request
for
continuing
review
with
the
Institutional
Research
Board
to
give
us
flexibility
in
following
up
with
users
for
clarification,
feedback,
etc.
The
Core
Team
remains
ready
t
oversee
any
additional
data
gathering
required.
We
encourage
all
library
faculty
and
staff
to
consult
existing
ethnographic
data
or
use
Google
Analytics
or
RUL
website
statistics
before
beginning
new
data
gathering
projects.
2.
We
need
to
market
the
websiteredesign
and
development
process
more
actively
within
the
L
3.
The
websiteredesign
and
development
process
needs
to
be
informed
by
the
differences
between
user
and
librarian
beliefs,
which
in
itself
is
one
of
the
key
take-waysfrom
the
ERP
study.
4.
Research
guides
and
other
current
similar
efforts
need
to
have
their
assumptions
challenged
not
only
for
service
effectiveness
but
also
for
r
on
investment.
Students
are
asking
to
be
directed
to
the
appropriate
resources
particular
to
their
specific
r
needs.
Research
guides
have
traditionally
been
the
Libraries
approach
to
addressing
this
need,
but
students
don’t
seem
to
be
generally
aware
of
research
guides.
Are
the
libraries
receiving
a
useful
return
on
investment
for
research
guides,
given
t
amount
of
time
and
effort
involved
in
creating
a
research
guide?
Should
more
agile
and
dynamic
approaches,
such
as
packaging
resources
into
custom
portals,
be
employed
instead?
What
are
our
peer
institutions
doing?
It
was
agreed
that
the
evaluation
of
the
research
guide
methodology
is
out
of
scope
for
this
working
group
but
that
the
research
guide
strategy
should
be
evaluated,
in
light
of
ERP
findings,
perhaps
by
a
specific
working
group
tasked
by
the
two
councils.
5.
Additional
recommendations
for
website
improvement
are
included
in
the
review
reports
from
relevant
councils
and
committees
on
the
Libraries
website.
SPEC Kit 322: Library User Experience · 165
Rutgers University
Studying Students to Enhance Library Services at Rutgers University
http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/ethnography/reports/ERP_Final_Report.pdf
2.
Work
with
other
groups,as
appropriate,
such
as
the
Digital
Interface
Group
(
)for
implementing
changes
to
the
e-
process.
Leverage
existing
expertise
and
service/resource
management
processes
to
add
efficiency,
integration,and
different
points
of
view
and
expertise
to
the
redesign
and
development
process.
3.
Recognize
that
websiteredesign
and
development
is
an
ongoing
process
that
needs
to
reflect
changing
user
needs
and
changing
technologies
and
not
a
discrete
and
massive
project
occurring
every
3-
years.
Develop
a
version
schedule
for
incremental,
ongoing
changes.
Schedule
at
least
two
websiteversions
annually.
4.
Identify
and
prioritize
websitefunctionalities
int o
coherent
and
coordinated
websiteversion
releases.
5.
Recognize
dependencies/interrelationship
to
other
developments,
such
as
the
selection
of
a
new
open
source
public
access
catalog
for
VALE
that
would
be
a
strong
candidate
for
the
new
public
catalog
interface
for
RUL.
Other
dependencies
include
integration
with
services
offered
via
OIT
(Sakai,
myRutgers,
etc. ),
changes
to
RUcoreetc.
,
OTHER
ISSUES
Several
remaining
issues
point
to
possible
future
activities:
1.
At
the
request
of
the
Core
Team,
Jeanne
Boyle,
the
remaining
principal
investigator
for
this
project,
filed
a
successful
request
for
continuing
review
with
the
Institutional
Research
Board
to
give
us
flexibility
in
following
up
with
users
for
clarification,
feedback,
etc.
The
Core
Team
remains
ready
t
oversee
any
additional
data
gathering
required.
We
encourage
all
library
faculty
and
staff
to
consult
existing
ethnographic
data
or
use
Analytics
or
RUL
website
statistics
before
beginning
new
data
gathering
projects.
2.
We
need
to
market
the
websiteredesign
and
development
process
more
actively
within
the
L
3.
The
websiteredesign
and
development
process
needs
to
be
informed
by
the
differences
between
user
and
librarian
beliefs,
which
in
itself
is
one
of
the
key
take-waysfrom
the
ERP
study.
4.
Research
guides
and
other
current
similar
efforts
need
to
have
their
assumptions
challenged
not
only
for
service
effectiveness
but
also
for
r
on
investment.
Students
are
asking
to
be
directed
to
the
appropriate
resources
particular
to
their
specific
r
needs.
Research
guides
have
traditionally
been
the
Libraries
approach
to
addressing
this
need,
but
students
don’t
seem
to
be
generally
aware
of
research
guides.
Are
the
libraries
receiving
a
useful
return
on
investment
for
research
guides,
given
t
amount
of
time
and
effort
involved
in
creating
a
research
guide?
Should
more
agile
and
dynamic
approaches,
such
as
packaging
resources
into
custom
portals,
be
employed
instead?
What
are
our
peer
institutions
doing?
It
was
agreed
that
the
evaluation
of
the
research
guide
methodology
is
out
of
scope
for
this
working
group
but
that
the
research
guide
strategy
should
be
evaluated,
in
light
of
ERP
findings,
perhaps
by
a
specific
working
group
tasked
by
the
two
councils.
5.
Additional
recommendations
for
website
improvement
are
included
in
the
review
reports
from
relevant
councils
and
committees
on
the
Libraries
website.
SPEC Kit 322: Library User Experience · 165
Rutgers University
Studying Students to Enhance Library Services at Rutgers University
http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/ethnography/reports/ERP_Final_Report.pdf
