Visibility of library on organizational websites

It has always bothered me when a link to the library of a particular organization is not prominently featured on the home page of its website. This is particularly bothersome for educational institutions given the de facto role of the library as a centerpiece of learning. In fact when I browse the web or go directly to a known institution and do not see a prominent link to the library, this gives me a bad impression of that institution. In a previous job when I was responsible for library websites, the issue of placement for the link to the library was a battle that I had to fight with non-library campus IT folks, and fight fairly aggressively. In the campus website that existed when I came into that position, the link to the library was buried somewhere in a category for Academics, if I recall. Noone could find it. This, in spite of the fact that the library site was one of the most heavily used in the entire campus web structure. Fortunately after a campus website redesign, the link to the library was placed prominently on the home page for the institution.

So it was with a lot of interest that I read Steven Bell’s summary, posted to ACRLog, of a discussion on the COLLIB-L discussion list regarding this issue. One portion of Bell’s post particularly caught my attention:

Tom Kirk, library director at Earlham College, also brought up the value of examining web site data, but made the observation that data alone would hardly yield the information we need about student behavior in using institutional and library web sites. Until we do know more about how students use our web sites, Tom said, we may be unjustified in arguing for what belongs on a home page. As for alternatives, Tom suggested that many of our institutions have specialized portals for communicating with current students and faculty, where a more prominent library link could be placed. He also suggested that having the library under “academics” has “become a de facto standard alternative to a link on the home page?” So if they do move your library link from the home page to academics, don’t take it too badly.

This statement from Tom Kirk frankly astounds me, especially the part about having the library under “academics” being the “de facto standard.” Not true! And even if it is fairly common, I vehemently disagree that we should be satisfied with that! Furthermore, we should and often do have the data to back up the assertion that the link to the library belongs on the institution’s home page. And we should and do have data on how our students are using our sites. I would ask the question, are other campus wide sites being asked to adhere to this same requirement? Maybe, but in many cases, I doubt it, based upon personal experience.

One more point I’d make is that the library is not just for students, it’s for the whole institution including faculty, staff, and alumni. Even more than that, it is for the broader worldwide academic community. In other words, library websites, especially for educational institutions, have a worldwide audience and this is often overlooked. I mention this because one of the arguments I faced when in charge of library websites was to keep the library websites publicly available versus putting them behind a firewall and accessible only via an intranet. The argument for this restriction (made by non-library IT people) was that library resources and information was only for existing students, faculty, and staff, so therefore it needn’t be available to anyone else. Of course this is true when we think of licensed e-resources but this approach would make the library’s online catalog and other freely available resources invisible to anyone else.

I am not arguing that the library website deserves high visibility “just because.” But I find it troubling that the library’s online presence needs to be defended so often, and that there is frequently an assumption that the link to the library should be buried somewhere within an institution’s site.

  • http://marklindner.info <![CDATA[Mark]]>

    Thanks for this Steve! The tone, and I guess the substance as well, of Tom Kirk’s comments bothered me also. But as one who has only been peripherally involved in this discussion at one institution I had a hard time stating exactly why. You did a fine job for me. Thanks!

  • http://www.familymanlibrarian.com/ <![CDATA[Steve]]>

    Thanks for the comment, Mark. In a bit of serendipity, today there is a thread on the Web4Lib discussion list that relates to this very issue and I just finished writing a reply to something Roy Tennant wrote on this topic.

    A key point here that sometimes gets missed is how critical and fundamental (mission critical) a library’s website is in this day and age. Sure, generally circulation and gate counts in academic libraries are going down. On the other hand, I suspect that unless a library has really messed things up, their website traffic, in contrast, is going way up. Management in libraries needs to have a clear sense of the website being central to the delivery of library services, not ancillary. Too many people still think of their library’s website as an add-on. It isn’t. (Or rather, it shouldn’t be.)

  • Pingback:

  • <![CDATA[John]]>

    I hate to play devil’s advocate here, but I found the idea that in modern universities that the library has “the de facto role … as a centerpiece of learning” a little absurd. The fact of the matter is that the Internet has rendered nearly every traditional educational function of the library obselete. By far the most important educational services a university library can provide now are those directly related to technology — the online cataloging and availability of journal articles, and the like.

  • http://www.familymanlibrarian.com/ <![CDATA[Steve]]>

    At first glance it is easy to think that that idea of the centrality to education of a university library is indeed absurd. Yet the two examples you use to bolster your argument are the very same that bolster my more traditional view of the library’s role: the online catalog(ing) and availability of journal articles. Neither of these functions is new at all. (Well, if you count the advent of online catalogs as new, then the late ’60s and early ’70s are deemed recent.)

    My point is that libraries have long provided these services (and much more) and the only major change in these two in particular that’s occurred because of technology is the way in which these services are delivered or made available.

    If you are looking at this from the view of the library as a physical space, then yes, you may have good grounds to argue that the central role for educational purposes isn’t there today (although I would argue against that point of view, too). In other words, much of the “action” is in e-resources rather than in traditional collections. This is why I think it is so important for the library to have a highly visible role in any institutional webspace — because they are now providing virtual services that are, by and large, heavily used. These include full text databases for journal articles, e-books, and other licensed online content. The proportion of library materials budgets being spent on these things is growing exponentially and now stands somewhere between 30 and 40% for the large academic and research libraries. Just because these services are online doesn’t negate the value of the library to education. In fact, it only serves to reinforce that perspective.

    As far as the availability of information on the Internet via search engines like Google, it is true that there is a lot of information out there that is accessible and free. However the vast majority of educational/scholarly information is absolutely NOT freely available still and is only accessible if a university library has paid for access to that information via a proprietary or vendor-supplied service. And even though a lot more information is freely available now than in the past to those who know how to navigate the Internet, that doesn’t mean that it is readily findable, organized, relevant, or trustworthy.