From aikhokar at cs.vt.edu  Sun Jun  1 05:01:57 2008
From: aikhokar at cs.vt.edu (Arif Khokar)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:01:57 -0400
Subject: [LibX] broken embedded cues in Amazon.com
In-Reply-To: <483F22F2.2050408@emory.edu>
References: <mailman.21.1211914820.74307.libx@mozdev.org>
	<483F22F2.2050408@emory.edu>
Message-ID: <48428FB5.3050109@cs.vt.edu>

Selden Deemer wrote:

> "Amazon broke on May 23, it's since been fixed in the codebase for FF. 
> IE is still broken."
> 
> Is there a rough estimate for when Amazon cue will work with IE? 
> Since it's summer, I don't feel pressure to fix this ASAP, and 
> would prefer to be able to handle both browsers with a single 
> new build -- especially if the IE problem is likely to be fixed 
> before, say, the end of June.

I fixed the problem back on the 27th.  If you've rebuilt the edition 
since then and are still having problems with the cue, then please let 
us know.

-- 
Arif Khokar
aikhokar at cs.vt.edu

From KBelton at leegov.com  Mon Jun  2 09:45:46 2008
From: KBelton at leegov.com (Belton, Keith)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:45:46 -0400
Subject: [LibX] broken embedded cues in Amazon.com
In-Reply-To: 48428FB5.3050109@cs.vt.edu
References: <mailman.21.1211914820.74307.libx@mozdev.org><483F22F2.2050408@emory.edu>
	48428FB5.3050109@cs.vt.edu
Message-ID: <B42D8D698F4AEF43820CF3BA5D625EB6124F93BB@EXCHVS2.Lee-County-FL.gov>

The cues were broken in my build. After rebuilding it today, the cues
work again in IE7 and FF2.0.0.14, but the icons do not display correctly
in FF3 (there is a gray substitution icon there instead).

IE7 even fades in the transparent icon nicely - but what's up with FF3?

Keith Belton, AICP
E-Branch Manager
Lee County Library System
kbelton at leegov.com
239 461 2928 (office, Mon and Thur)
239 533 4037 (office, other days)
239 533 4040 (fax)

From libssd at emory.edu  Mon Jun  2 12:19:25 2008
From: libssd at emory.edu (Selden Deemer)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:19:25 -0400
Subject: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol Re:  broken embedded cues in Amazon.com
In-Reply-To: <mailman.37.1212433219.86348.libx@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.37.1212433219.86348.libx@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <484447BD.4040904@emory.edu>

The gray shadow icon appears to be a FF3 bug, as I have seen
it in other contexts that do not involve LibX.

Selden Deemer, Library Systems Administrator
Emory University Libraries
Atlanta, Georgia
EMAIL:  libssd at emory.edu
PHONE:  404-727-0271
   FAX:  404-727-0827

Keith Belton <KBelton at leegov.com> writes:

 > The cues were broken in my build. After rebuilding it today,
 > the cues work again in IE7 and FF2.0.0.14, but the icons do
 > not display correctly in FF3 (there is a gray substitution
 > icon there instead).


From godmar at gmail.com  Mon Jun  2 21:46:38 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:46:38 -0400
Subject: [LibX] broken embedded cues in Amazon.com
In-Reply-To: <B42D8D698F4AEF43820CF3BA5D625EB6124F93BB@EXCHVS2.Lee-County-FL.gov>
References: <mailman.21.1211914820.74307.libx@mozdev.org>
	<483F22F2.2050408@emory.edu>
	<B42D8D698F4AEF43820CF3BA5D625EB6124F93BB@EXCHVS2.Lee-County-FL.gov>
Message-ID: <719dced30806022146o495245d0s55d3cfb38838d20c@mail.gmail.com>

The Firefox team decided to change their security policy between FF
3.0b5 and FF 3RC1. As a result, all of LibX's cues broke in FF3 RC1.
The issue is fixed in the current LibX code base, which you can pick
up with a rebuild/reinstall.

I do not believe that the Firefox developers have addressed the
underlying issue correctly and have filed a bug report with them.
Whatever develops from this, we hope the LibX code base stays
functional with respect to embedding cues.

 - Godmar

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Belton, Keith <KBelton at leegov.com> wrote:
> The cues were broken in my build. After rebuilding it today, the cues
> work again in IE7 and FF2.0.0.14, but the icons do not display correctly
> in FF3 (there is a gray substitution icon there instead).
>
> IE7 even fades in the transparent icon nicely - but what's up with FF3?
>
> Keith Belton, AICP
> E-Branch Manager
> Lee County Library System
> kbelton at leegov.com
> 239 461 2928 (office, Mon and Thur)
> 239 533 4037 (office, other days)
> 239 533 4040 (fax)
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From dansich at gmail.com  Wed Jun  4 07:57:06 2008
From: dansich at gmail.com (Dan Sich)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:57:06 -0400
Subject: [LibX] push vs. pull
Message-ID: <1118ef3d0806040757l3c66bb41h6eac930c589b99d6@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Godmar et al,

I've noticed that on none of the 3 machines I'm using does our LibX inform
me when a new build is available.  Is there a setting in LibX edition
builder which allows me to push out new builds of my library's LibX, rather
than putting the onus on users to check for and pull down each new build?
Our version ID is 1C437F1F.

Thanks,
Dan Sich
Univeristy of Western Ontario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080604/e862e850/attachment.html 

From dansich at gmail.com  Wed Jun  4 07:57:18 2008
From: dansich at gmail.com (Dan Sich)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:57:18 -0400
Subject: [LibX] push vs. pull
Message-ID: <1118ef3d0806040757h1a040ddep3238a461ab4edd0b@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Godmar et al,

I've noticed that on none of the 3 machines I'm using does our LibX inform
me when a new build is available.  Is there a setting in LibX edition
builder which allows me to push out new builds of my library's LibX, rather
than putting the onus on users to check for and pull down each new build?
Our version ID is 1C437F1F.

Thanks,
Dan Sich
Univeristy of Western Ontario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080604/b66a3ca3/attachment.html 

From godmar at gmail.com  Wed Jun  4 08:52:38 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:52:38 -0400
Subject: [LibX] push vs. pull
In-Reply-To: <1118ef3d0806040757l3c66bb41h6eac930c589b99d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1118ef3d0806040757l3c66bb41h6eac930c589b99d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <719dced30806040852l4c3effa4x450a98660da4372@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Dan Sich <dansich at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Godmar et al,
>
> I've noticed that on none of the 3 machines I'm using does our LibX inform
> me when a new build is available.  Is there a setting in LibX edition
> builder which allows me to push out new builds of my library's LibX, rather
> than putting the onus on users to check for and pull down each new build?
> Our version ID is 1C437F1F.
>

LibX (FF) uses the Firefox update mechanism for plugins. Whenever you
make a revision live, an update.rdf file is created on the our server.
This file is checked in regular intervals by all clients. (The
interval is by default set to 24hours). There is a delay of up to 24
hours before a client may notice the availability of an update.

I'm personally a bit unclear on what happens once Firefox notices the
availability of an update. I do know that if the user goes into the
Tools -> Add-Ons dialog and selects "Find Updates", the update will be
offered for install.

However, I have also seen Firefox offer updates when it starts up (and
had previously noticed that updates are available for extensions that
are installed.) I must admit that I don't know whether this happens
consistently.

According to the documentation at
http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config_entries (entry: notifyUser)
Firefox should always offer a startup dialog to prompt the user to
install an update when it starts up and an update is pending. This is
confirmed by other sources, such as this blog entry discussing the
extension update notifier extension:
http://lifehacker.com/software/notifications/download-of-the-day-update-notifier-firefoxthunderbird-236237.php
  This extension, btw, also claim to provide a way to automatically
install updates.

Ultimately, there is a spectrum of design choices.  We could
completely bypass Firefox's update mechanism and implement our own
update. I'm hesitant to do that because of the amount of custom code
involved and the effort required in maintaining it.

On the other hand is the option to stick with whatever policy Firefox
thinks up and implements. This may be unsatisfactory, as you point
out.

A third option would be for the extension to automatically download
changes to its configuration periodically without updating its
codebase. That's an option, but would require a number of design
changes and implementation effort to implement, so it won't happen by
tomorrow.

Our original rationale was that configuration changes would be
(relatively) infrequent, and often accompanied by code updates, so a
user having to confirm an extension update when they start their
Firefox would not be too high of a burden.

Finally, I note that we're working on eliminating the "broken cue"
issue which currently mandates pushing updates by automating "cue"
updates. As a side effect, this may provide us with the ability to
streamline the extension update process as well. Maybe we could
duplicate some of the functionality provided by the extension update
notifier extension in LibX/FF.

 - Godmar

From libssd at emory.edu  Wed Jun  4 12:24:40 2008
From: libssd at emory.edu (Selden Deemer)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:24:40 -0400
Subject: [LibX] push vs. pull
In-Reply-To: <mailman.19.1212606029.40796.libx@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.19.1212606029.40796.libx@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4846EBF8.9010904@emory.edu>

Godmar Back writes:

 > According to the documentation at
 > http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config_entries (entry: notifyUser)
 > Firefox should always offer a startup dialog to prompt the user to
 > install an update when it starts up and an update is pending.

This is the experience I have always had with FF and LibX, as
long as I have the *live* version of our LibX edition installed.
FireFox does not prompt when I have a testing version installed
(nor would I expect it to).

Selden Deemer, Library Systems Administrator
Emory University Libraries
Atlanta, Georgia
EMAIL:  libssd at emory.edu
PHONE:  404-727-0271
   FAX:  404-727-0827

From mbelvadi at maryville.edu  Mon Jun  9 08:38:27 2008
From: mbelvadi at maryville.edu (Belvadi, Melissa)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:38:27 -0500
Subject: [LibX] how to change default indexes in context menu?
Message-ID: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086E81@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>

Hello.  Is there a way I can change which index options are the default
settings for the context menu? We have two catalogs, our own and a
consortial one, and I'd like for the context menu title searches in both
the local and consortial catalogs to be checked by default for new
installations of the toolbar. I can't figure out how to do that in the
Edition Builder. Right now the default is just the local catalog.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Melissa Belvadi

Systems and Services Librarian

Maryville University

650 Maryville University Dr.

St. Louis, MO 63141

mbelvadi at maryville.edu <mailto:mbelvadi at maryville.edu> 

ph: 314-529-9531

fax: 314-529-9941

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080609/96a5dca6/attachment.html 

From godmar at gmail.com  Mon Jun  9 08:58:10 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:58:10 -0400
Subject: [LibX] how to change default indexes in context menu?
In-Reply-To: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086E81@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
References: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086E81@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806090858p6e9d9954j8be559a55f5196f9@mail.gmail.com>

It's not supported right now. Leave a RFE at libx.org/bugzilla for us.
 We have a number of customization requests lined up there already.

We're currently investing most of our effort in getting the FF3 update
through the door and in getting the IE version out of beta; in
connection with that, the ability to hot-update cues and the ability
to use jQuery in cues.

 - Godmar

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Belvadi, Melissa
<mbelvadi at maryville.edu> wrote:
> Hello.  Is there a way I can change which index options are the default
> settings for the context menu? We have two catalogs, our own and a
> consortial one, and I'd like for the context menu title searches in both the
> local and consortial catalogs to be checked by default for new installations
> of the toolbar. I can't figure out how to do that in the Edition Builder.
> Right now the default is just the local catalog.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> Melissa Belvadi
>
> Systems and Services Librarian
>
> Maryville University
>
> 650 Maryville University Dr.
>
> St. Louis, MO 63141
>
> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
>
> ph: 314-529-9531
>
> fax: 314-529-9941
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>
>

From dansich at gmail.com  Wed Jun 11 09:35:00 2008
From: dansich at gmail.com (Dan Sich)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:35:00 -0400
Subject: [LibX] LibX assessment?
Message-ID: <1118ef3d0806110935l1eadb87fg6eeee80243b88a6b@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings,

My library is all about evidence-based practice.  So, while I love LibX and
use it almost every day, this alone isn't enough to justify making it
available to our users.  It might be argued that it can't hurt to provide
users with the option of installing the extension, and that LibX doesn't
require much work on the part of the library.  I'd agree with both of those
statements.  Nevertheless, I would like to have some ideas as to how I can
assess the utility, effectiveness, etc. of our library's version of LibX
_before_ our library publicizes the extension to our users.

Has anyone conducted any type of assessment of the take-up, retention, use,
etc. of their instance of LibX?  If so, what have you done?  Here are some
ideas and questions that come to mind:

   - We have Google Analytics and could count the number of links through
   our site to our LibX installation page.
   - Is there a ready means of determining how many users are downloading
   the extension?  (I'm guessing there isn't.)
   - What about retaining the extension -- can this easily be measured?
   (Also guessing the answer is no.)
   - Is there a means of measuring how many of our OPAC (Innovative) and SFX
   searches originate from LibX?

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
Dan Sich
Liaison Librarian for Physics & Astronomy, Earth Sciences, Planetary
Science, Electrical & Computer Engineering

Phone: 519-661-2111 ext. 80962
Fax: 519-661-3435
Email & MSN chat: dsich2 at uwo.ca
Skype: dansich
Blog:  http://www.shushers.ca/libraridan

Allyn & Betty Taylor Library
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario
N6A 5B7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080611/b537ee4e/attachment.html 

From libx.org at gmail.com  Wed Jun 11 10:26:10 2008
From: libx.org at gmail.com (LibX Project)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:26:10 -0400
Subject: [LibX] LibX assessment?
In-Reply-To: <1118ef3d0806110935l1eadb87fg6eeee80243b88a6b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1118ef3d0806110935l1eadb87fg6eeee80243b88a6b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <719dced30806111026q417ab1f9u8a147d9b11398808@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Dan Sich <dansich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is there a ready means of determining how many users are downloading the
> extension?  (I'm guessing there isn't.)

This is a frequently requested feature.
We don't have anybody to work on it, and we've so far prioritized it
lower than getting LibX 1.5 out the door and LibX IE public.

It involves writing the necessary cronjob to chop up our server logs
and processing them in some to-be-determined fashion.
I have given, in the past, unprocessed log excerpts to interested
parties who had the expertise to process apache logs, but obviously,
this approach doesn't scale.

Maybe I'm setting the wrong priorities here, but I'd like to see LibX
offer new features rather than spending undue amounts of time
evaluating how effective it is with the features it has.  Going
forward, we'd like to see LibX to be much more than a forward - we
envision it to be a community platform to deploy library services in
the client that do more than simply offer search options. To that end,
while the number of downloads of the current version is useful, I
don't think it will be any indicator towards the usefulness or
effectiveness of future versions. Also, last time I checked, the major
editions (Harvard and MIT) were downloaded over 4,000 times, followed
by a dozen or libraries with 500-1000 downloads, but the majority had
less than 500. That's FF only.

> What about retaining the extension -- can this easily be measured?  (Also
> guessing the answer is no.)

Yes, it can.  Users that have the extension installed will query for
updates every 24 hours. These queries show up as hits on our server.
When we provide download statistics, we could include those as well.

> Is there a means of measuring how many of our OPAC (Innovative) and SFX
> searches originate from LibX?

I don't think there's a way for Innovative (thanks to the closed
character of this particular product).

For the SFX OpenURL server, assign a sid for libx and count how many
requests have that sid.
For the SFX Journal List, a similar technique may be possible.  LibX
is sending along a sid you can configure.

An awkward way that some libraries have used is to direct all accesses
through a proxy who redirects all requests while counting them.

With the "hot-update" functionality in LibX 1.5 we should have the
ability to create an "opt-in" version of LibX where users could
consent to having statistics about their use of LibX collected.

 - Godmar

From esimpson at brandeis.edu  Wed Jun 11 12:51:00 2008
From: esimpson at brandeis.edu (Evan Simpson)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:51:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [LibX] LibX assessment?
In-Reply-To: <22282650.22851213212917740.JavaMail.root@zimbra-store-4.unet.brandeis.edu>
Message-ID: <20133976.22961213213860517.JavaMail.root@zimbra-store-4.unet.brandeis.edu>

One way to evaluate the use of LibX at your institution is to utilize the data in whatever Interlibrary Loan/Resource Sharing system you have in place.  In ILLiad, for instance, there is a "Cited In" field for each transaction that captures what database/eresource the user placed a request from IF they placed it via OpenURL.  ILLiad considers LibX as a source, so we see "LibX:(Via SFX)" for requests submitted while users search for info using LibX (as opposed to, say "EBSCO:MZH(Via SFX)" for requests originating from Ebsco MLA Bibliography).

This is of course only one aspect of usage, but we are indeed seeing increases in the percentage of ILL requests received via OpenURL that originate from LibX, which tells us that our users are using LibX, finding resources, and requesting them. 

Evan

-- 
Evan Simpson
Assistant Director for Resource Sharing
Library and Technology Services
Brandeis University 
esimpson at brandeis.edu
p 781.736.4693

----- Original Message -----
From: "LibX Project" <libx.org at gmail.com>
To: "Dan Sich" <dansich at gmail.com>
Cc: libx at mozdev.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:26:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [LibX] LibX assessment?

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Dan Sich <dansich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is there a ready means of determining how many users are downloading the
> extension?  (I'm guessing there isn't.)

This is a frequently requested feature.
We don't have anybody to work on it, and we've so far prioritized it
lower than getting LibX 1.5 out the door and LibX IE public.

It involves writing the necessary cronjob to chop up our server logs
and processing them in some to-be-determined fashion.
I have given, in the past, unprocessed log excerpts to interested
parties who had the expertise to process apache logs, but obviously,
this approach doesn't scale.

Maybe I'm setting the wrong priorities here, but I'd like to see LibX
offer new features rather than spending undue amounts of time
evaluating how effective it is with the features it has.  Going
forward, we'd like to see LibX to be much more than a forward - we
envision it to be a community platform to deploy library services in
the client that do more than simply offer search options. To that end,
while the number of downloads of the current version is useful, I
don't think it will be any indicator towards the usefulness or
effectiveness of future versions. Also, last time I checked, the major
editions (Harvard and MIT) were downloaded over 4,000 times, followed
by a dozen or libraries with 500-1000 downloads, but the majority had
less than 500. That's FF only.

> What about retaining the extension -- can this easily be measured?  (Also
> guessing the answer is no.)

Yes, it can.  Users that have the extension installed will query for
updates every 24 hours. These queries show up as hits on our server.
When we provide download statistics, we could include those as well.

> Is there a means of measuring how many of our OPAC (Innovative) and SFX
> searches originate from LibX?

I don't think there's a way for Innovative (thanks to the closed
character of this particular product).

For the SFX OpenURL server, assign a sid for libx and count how many
requests have that sid.
For the SFX Journal List, a similar technique may be possible.  LibX
is sending along a sid you can configure.

An awkward way that some libraries have used is to direct all accesses
through a proxy who redirects all requests while counting them.

With the "hot-update" functionality in LibX 1.5 we should have the
ability to create an "opt-in" version of LibX where users could
consent to having statistics about their use of LibX collected.

 - Godmar
_______________________________________________
Libx mailing list
Libx at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx




From libssd at emory.edu  Wed Jun 11 18:01:08 2008
From: libssd at emory.edu (Selden Deemer)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:01:08 -0400
Subject: [LibX] LibX assessment?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <E183F753-6D99-4B83-A442-9E24C0A60114@emory.edu>

> My library is all about evidence-based practice.  So, while I love  
> LibX and
> use it almost every day, this alone isn't enough to justify making it
> available to our users.  It might be argued that it can't hurt to  
> provide
> users with the option of installing the extension, and that LibX  
> doesn't
> require much work on the part of the library.  I'd agree with both  
> of those
> statements.  Nevertheless, I would like to have some ideas as to how  
> I can
> assess the utility, effectiveness, etc. of our library's version of  
> LibX
> _before_ our library publicizes the extension to our users.
>
> Has anyone conducted any type of assessment of the take-up,  
> retention, use,
> etc. of their instance of LibX?  If so, what have you done?

Not sure how relevant this is, but SFX Query #2 identifies requests
and clickthroughs per source. Here are the numbers Sept-May for the
LibX sid:
		     	   Requests Clickthroughs  %
info:sid/libx:emory		393	197	50.13%
info:sid/libx:emory		349	162	46.42%
info:sid/libx:emory		429	178	41.49%
info:sid/libx:emory		310	96	30.97%
info:sid/libx:emory		310	151	48.71%
info:sid/libx:emory		393	221	56.23%
info:sid/libx:emory		576	320	55.56%
info:sid/libx:emory		849	475	55.95%
info:sid/libx:emory		284	137	48.24%

For context, here are the sources that generated more requests
than LibX in April 2008:

April			
info:sid/sfx:e_collection	47,341	38,168	80.62%
info:sid/Entrez:PubMed		22,212	16,167	72.78%
info:sid/google			12,376	10,401	84.04%
info:sid/OVID:medline		11,475	8,368	72.92%
info:sid/OVID:psycdb		5,149	3,396	65.95%
info:sid/www.isinet.com:WoK:WOS	4,924	3,962	80.46%
info:sid/www.isinet.com:WoK:UA	1,556	1,179	75.77%
info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist	1,267	1,208	95.34%
info:sid/OVID:nursing		1,220	763	62.54%
info:sid/OVID:ovftdb		1,161	840	72.35%
info:sid/EBSCO:a9h		1,155	828	71.69%
info:sid/EBSCO:rfh		958	449	46.87%
info:sid/EBSCO:mzh		871	472	54.19%
info:sid/libx:emory		849	475	55.95%

(165 other sources generated lower numbers in April)

LibX appears to be used to drive a small, but significant amount
of OpenURL traffic to SFX. Those who "get it" really like it.
Support effort has been minimal.

Selden Deemer, Library Systems Administrator
Emory University Libraries
Atlanta, Georgia
EMAIL: 	libssd at emory.edu
PHONE: 	404-727-0271
FAX:  	404-727-0827


From godmar at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 08:51:14 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:51:14 -0400
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
Message-ID: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>

On the topic of ILL support (raised in a separate thread), I'd like to
note that LibX could support ILL in the following way:

Many institutions appear to be using ILLiad, which uses
OpenURL-compatible query syntax. In fact, many institutions' ILLiad
server is listed in the OpenURL registry (where the edition builder
will find it and offer to import it), and those whose ILLiad server is
not can easily configure it as a second OpenURL resolver. Given that
we therefore could easily achieve the ability to configure ILL ability
for many editions, I'm wondering how to use it.

On which pages would you like your users to alert to the possibility
that they could obtain an item via ILL? Where do you get most ILL
requests from?

 - Godmar

From kaleonar at iuk.edu  Thu Jun 12 09:56:18 2008
From: kaleonar at iuk.edu (Leonard, Kirsten A.)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:56:18 -0400
Subject: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6
In-Reply-To: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4073@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>

I'd like to chime in for the request for assessment data.  On our campus this is a very high priority and we are required to justify new projects.  Comparisons for downloads and usage as new versions come out may also be useful for assessing individual features.  Frankly, for me, the assessment is the highest priority, much more so than new features.  I also have to prove impact as part of my annual review process and usage stats are one of the strongest types of evidence that I can provide.

--Kirsten

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Leonard
Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
Assistant Director of Institutional Research
Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
2300 South Washington St.
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
kaleonar at iuk.edu
(765)455-9346
Fax (765)455-9276


-----Original Message-----
From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf Of libx-request at mozdev.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:00 PM
To: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6

Send Libx mailing list submissions to
        libx at mozdev.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        libx-request at mozdev.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        libx-owner at mozdev.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Libx digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. LibX assessment? (Dan Sich)
   2. Re: LibX assessment? (LibX Project)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:35:00 -0400
From: "Dan Sich" <dansich at gmail.com>
Subject: [LibX] LibX assessment?
To: libx at mozdev.org
Message-ID:
        <1118ef3d0806110935l1eadb87fg6eeee80243b88a6b at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Greetings,

My library is all about evidence-based practice.  So, while I love LibX and
use it almost every day, this alone isn't enough to justify making it
available to our users.  It might be argued that it can't hurt to provide
users with the option of installing the extension, and that LibX doesn't
require much work on the part of the library.  I'd agree with both of those
statements.  Nevertheless, I would like to have some ideas as to how I can
assess the utility, effectiveness, etc. of our library's version of LibX
_before_ our library publicizes the extension to our users.

Has anyone conducted any type of assessment of the take-up, retention, use,
etc. of their instance of LibX?  If so, what have you done?  Here are some
ideas and questions that come to mind:

   - We have Google Analytics and could count the number of links through
   our site to our LibX installation page.
   - Is there a ready means of determining how many users are downloading
   the extension?  (I'm guessing there isn't.)
   - What about retaining the extension -- can this easily be measured?
   (Also guessing the answer is no.)
   - Is there a means of measuring how many of our OPAC (Innovative) and SFX
   searches originate from LibX?

Thanks,
Dan

--
Dan Sich
Liaison Librarian for Physics & Astronomy, Earth Sciences, Planetary
Science, Electrical & Computer Engineering

Phone: 519-661-2111 ext. 80962
Fax: 519-661-3435
Email & MSN chat: dsich2 at uwo.ca
Skype: dansich
Blog:  http://www.shushers.ca/libraridan

Allyn & Betty Taylor Library
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario
N6A 5B7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080611/b537ee4e/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:26:10 -0400
From: "LibX Project" <libx.org at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LibX] LibX assessment?
To: "Dan Sich" <dansich at gmail.com>
Cc: libx at mozdev.org
Message-ID:
        <719dced30806111026q417ab1f9u8a147d9b11398808 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Dan Sich <dansich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is there a ready means of determining how many users are downloading the
> extension?  (I'm guessing there isn't.)

This is a frequently requested feature.
We don't have anybody to work on it, and we've so far prioritized it
lower than getting LibX 1.5 out the door and LibX IE public.

It involves writing the necessary cronjob to chop up our server logs
and processing them in some to-be-determined fashion.
I have given, in the past, unprocessed log excerpts to interested
parties who had the expertise to process apache logs, but obviously,
this approach doesn't scale.

Maybe I'm setting the wrong priorities here, but I'd like to see LibX
offer new features rather than spending undue amounts of time
evaluating how effective it is with the features it has.  Going
forward, we'd like to see LibX to be much more than a forward - we
envision it to be a community platform to deploy library services in
the client that do more than simply offer search options. To that end,
while the number of downloads of the current version is useful, I
don't think it will be any indicator towards the usefulness or
effectiveness of future versions. Also, last time I checked, the major
editions (Harvard and MIT) were downloaded over 4,000 times, followed
by a dozen or libraries with 500-1000 downloads, but the majority had
less than 500. That's FF only.

> What about retaining the extension -- can this easily be measured?  (Also
> guessing the answer is no.)

Yes, it can.  Users that have the extension installed will query for
updates every 24 hours. These queries show up as hits on our server.
When we provide download statistics, we could include those as well.

> Is there a means of measuring how many of our OPAC (Innovative) and SFX
> searches originate from LibX?

I don't think there's a way for Innovative (thanks to the closed
character of this particular product).

For the SFX OpenURL server, assign a sid for libx and count how many
requests have that sid.
For the SFX Journal List, a similar technique may be possible.  LibX
is sending along a sid you can configure.

An awkward way that some libraries have used is to direct all accesses
through a proxy who redirects all requests while counting them.

With the "hot-update" functionality in LibX 1.5 we should have the
ability to create an "opt-in" version of LibX where users could
consent to having statistics about their use of LibX collected.

 - Godmar


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Libx mailing list
Libx at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx


End of Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6
***********************************

From mbelvadi at maryville.edu  Thu Jun 12 10:16:12 2008
From: mbelvadi at maryville.edu (Belvadi, Melissa)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:16:12 -0500
Subject: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4073@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F55@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>

Well, I would like to argue the opposite, at least as regards to libx
development priorities. Assessment is a local problem, and there are
plenty of local solutions (see below). I would much rather the libx
development team concentrate on doing what I can't do for myself/my
library, which is adding new useful features, and improving the
heuristics for the existing features.

What local solutions are there for assessment?
1. your openurl server should be able to report incoming links by SID,
so it will give you libx-generated hits into it
2. you can set up a simple hit counter (or use Google Analytics for more
sophisticated analysis) with your own web page that leads to the
download links for the plugin, to get usage data on who installs it (or
shows interest in it). If you really need very precise data on
downloads, you can probably also arrange to copy the actual installation
programs (eg the .xpi file for FF) to your own server so that your own
server's weblogs can count the actual downloads for you.
3. you can set up on your own local web site a very simple proxy-like
pass-through site for your catalog etc. links so that every instance of
using libx to search your catalog or whatever gets recorded in a local
hit log.

I'm sure other people on this list can offer other ideas on how to
locally to count these things, and other things you might want to count.

The important point to remember is that Libx.org is NOT a for-profit
vendor, just making a product for a market. They need us to use the
product yes, of course, so it has to meet our core needs, but they are
also a research project and have to balance the larger goals of the
project with our day-to-day desiderata. We're participants in research,
and need to be a bit more flexible and creative on our side too. Maybe
some day, like the original Mozilla, it will get spun off into a
commercial product (like Netscape did) and then we can expect all of the
usual kinds of services we expect of our other commercial vendors.  If
your institutional management is so inflexible that it can't understand
the value of being such a participant even if it means that they won't
get the usual commercially-available usage data, then maybe your
internal culture isn't appropriate for such participation. I don't mean
that in a nasty way, but a serious one. There have been times that I've
turned down beta participation in interesting projects because I knew my
internal culture couldn't support the instability, however beneficial I
thought such participation might be for some patrons.

Melissa Belvadi
Systems and Services Librarian
Maryville University
650 Maryville University Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63141
mbelvadi at maryville.edu
ph: 314-529-9531
fax: 314-529-9941



-----Original Message-----
From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
Of Leonard, Kirsten A.
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:56 AM
To: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: Re: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6

I'd like to chime in for the request for assessment data.  On our campus
this is a very high priority and we are required to justify new
projects.  Comparisons for downloads and usage as new versions come out
may also be useful for assessing individual features.  Frankly, for me,
the assessment is the highest priority, much more so than new features.
I also have to prove impact as part of my annual review process and
usage stats are one of the strongest types of evidence that I can
provide.

--Kirsten

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Leonard
Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
Assistant Director of Institutional Research
Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
2300 South Washington St.
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
kaleonar at iuk.edu
(765)455-9346
Fax (765)455-9276

From mbelvadi at maryville.edu  Thu Jun 12 10:23:07 2008
From: mbelvadi at maryville.edu (Belvadi, Melissa)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:23:07 -0500
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
References: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>

We use ILLiad, and we have its openurl-compliant capability linked
through our openurl server results. I wouldn't want to have patrons go
straight to ILLiad through some other link and bypass the openurl
server, for a few reasons. The first is of course inappropriate requests
for things we actually own. The second is that I don't believe ILLiad
supports lookups for things like DOI and PMID, as our openurl server
does, so the user needs the openurl server to handle fetching the proper
complete citation for ILLiad. The third is that the openurl server
offers other options that might serve the patron better than waiting for
the ILL request to complete (eg. links to other area openurl servers
where they might have borrowing/online privileges) which they wouldn't
see if they went straight to the ILLiad request form.


Melissa Belvadi
Systems and Services Librarian
Maryville University
650 Maryville University Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63141
mbelvadi at maryville.edu
ph: 314-529-9531
fax: 314-529-9941



-----Original Message-----
From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
Of Godmar Back
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:51 AM
To: Evan Simpson
Cc: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: [LibX] ILL support

On the topic of ILL support (raised in a separate thread), I'd like to
note that LibX could support ILL in the following way:

Many institutions appear to be using ILLiad, which uses
OpenURL-compatible query syntax. In fact, many institutions' ILLiad
server is listed in the OpenURL registry (where the edition builder
will find it and offer to import it), and those whose ILLiad server is
not can easily configure it as a second OpenURL resolver. Given that
we therefore could easily achieve the ability to configure ILL ability
for many editions, I'm wondering how to use it.

On which pages would you like your users to alert to the possibility
that they could obtain an item via ILL? Where do you get most ILL
requests from?

 - Godmar
_______________________________________________
Libx mailing list
Libx at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx

From kaleonar at iuk.edu  Thu Jun 12 10:50:48 2008
From: kaleonar at iuk.edu (Leonard, Kirsten A.)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:50:48 -0400
Subject: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities
In-Reply-To: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F55@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4073@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F55@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
Message-ID: <CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB408F@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>

I think I've not done a good job of explaining the purpose.  There isn't any set number or level that justifies the project, it's more that there is a culture that it is not sufficient to innovate but we must also show that our users are positively impacted by our innovation.  This is not limited to our institution, but any institution going through re-accreditation right now, but it is not required for every single product or service.  I agree completely that downloads are not a sufficient measure of impact alone.  The one area that Godmar mentioned that really got me excited in particular was the ability to count the retention and on-going usage of the extension, which I think is more useful.

I will certainly explore some of the options suggested for gathering data ourselves and I appreciate everyone's help, but a few of the better ones aren't open to us hence my interest in what Godmar had suggested as possibilties.  For example, we just moved from SFX to Serials Solutions which unfortunately does not give stats by SID and we can't get OpenURL statistics from our ILL form.

The ability to provide usage statistics is a priority for many library products and services, and becoming more so - for example the strong interest in the COUNTER standard and various products such as Scholarly Stats to record database usage, so I wouldn't like to see usage considered unimportant or just a local concern.  I do get your point about supporting innovation and development first but reviewing what has been accomplished is also useful to fuel more innovation.  I plan to do some small user studies to see how people are using the toolbar, what features they particularly like, and what features they would want to see in future versions of the toolbar.

--Kirsten

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Leonard
Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
Assistant Director of Institutional Research
Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
2300 South Washington St.
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
kaleonar at iuk.edu
(765)455-9346
Fax (765)455-9276



-----Original Message-----
From: Belvadi, Melissa [mailto:mbelvadi at maryville.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:16 PM
To: Leonard, Kirsten A.; libx at mozdev.org
Subject: assessment and libx priorities

Well, I would like to argue the opposite, at least as regards to libx
development priorities. Assessment is a local problem, and there are
plenty of local solutions (see below). I would much rather the libx
development team concentrate on doing what I can't do for myself/my
library, which is adding new useful features, and improving the
heuristics for the existing features.

What local solutions are there for assessment?
1. your openurl server should be able to report incoming links by SID,
so it will give you libx-generated hits into it
2. you can set up a simple hit counter (or use Google Analytics for more
sophisticated analysis) with your own web page that leads to the
download links for the plugin, to get usage data on who installs it (or
shows interest in it). If you really need very precise data on
downloads, you can probably also arrange to copy the actual installation
programs (eg the .xpi file for FF) to your own server so that your own
server's weblogs can count the actual downloads for you.
3. you can set up on your own local web site a very simple proxy-like
pass-through site for your catalog etc. links so that every instance of
using libx to search your catalog or whatever gets recorded in a local
hit log.

I'm sure other people on this list can offer other ideas on how to
locally to count these things, and other things you might want to count.

The important point to remember is that Libx.org is NOT a for-profit
vendor, just making a product for a market. They need us to use the
product yes, of course, so it has to meet our core needs, but they are
also a research project and have to balance the larger goals of the
project with our day-to-day desiderata. We're participants in research,
and need to be a bit more flexible and creative on our side too. Maybe
some day, like the original Mozilla, it will get spun off into a
commercial product (like Netscape did) and then we can expect all of the
usual kinds of services we expect of our other commercial vendors.  If
your institutional management is so inflexible that it can't understand
the value of being such a participant even if it means that they won't
get the usual commercially-available usage data, then maybe your
internal culture isn't appropriate for such participation. I don't mean
that in a nasty way, but a serious one. There have been times that I've
turned down beta participation in interesting projects because I knew my
internal culture couldn't support the instability, however beneficial I
thought such participation might be for some patrons.

Melissa Belvadi
Systems and Services Librarian
Maryville University
650 Maryville University Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63141
mbelvadi at maryville.edu
ph: 314-529-9531
fax: 314-529-9941



-----Original Message-----
From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
Of Leonard, Kirsten A.
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:56 AM
To: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: Re: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6

I'd like to chime in for the request for assessment data.  On our campus
this is a very high priority and we are required to justify new
projects.  Comparisons for downloads and usage as new versions come out
may also be useful for assessing individual features.  Frankly, for me,
the assessment is the highest priority, much more so than new features.
I also have to prove impact as part of my annual review process and
usage stats are one of the strongest types of evidence that I can
provide.

--Kirsten

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Leonard
Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
Assistant Director of Institutional Research
Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
2300 South Washington St.
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
kaleonar at iuk.edu
(765)455-9346
Fax (765)455-9276

From godmar at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 10:51:05 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:51:05 -0400
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
In-Reply-To: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
References: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806121051x147316c4seda43cf64cfd642d@mail.gmail.com>

Those are good thoughts, but:

Your OpenURL server is unique (thanks to you, Melissa) in that it
actually checks what you own before offering ILL. Most OpenURL servers
don't, however. (Which makes me wonder why there isn't an outcry from
ILL departments flooded with requests for items already owned. Maybe
it's because they offer this option last, usually.)

The PMID and DOI case can be handled in LibX logic, either by ignoring
those OpenURLs or by actually looking up the metadata. If I recall,
both identifiers can be resolved with web services.

So, let me rephrase the question. Assuming that the problems above can
be tackled, are there places where pointing to ILL would be good or
preferable to OpenURL?

One that comes to mind is seller sites (once we connect them to a
holdings check); for most of those sites, and for most OpenURL
resolvers out there, ILL is really the only option.

 - Godmar

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Belvadi, Melissa
<mbelvadi at maryville.edu> wrote:
> We use ILLiad, and we have its openurl-compliant capability linked
> through our openurl server results. I wouldn't want to have patrons go
> straight to ILLiad through some other link and bypass the openurl
> server, for a few reasons. The first is of course inappropriate requests
> for things we actually own. The second is that I don't believe ILLiad
> supports lookups for things like DOI and PMID, as our openurl server
> does, so the user needs the openurl server to handle fetching the proper
> complete citation for ILLiad. The third is that the openurl server
> offers other options that might serve the patron better than waiting for
> the ILL request to complete (eg. links to other area openurl servers
> where they might have borrowing/online privileges) which they wouldn't
> see if they went straight to the ILLiad request form.
>
>
> Melissa Belvadi
> Systems and Services Librarian
> Maryville University
> 650 Maryville University Dr.
> St. Louis, MO 63141
> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
> ph: 314-529-9531
> fax: 314-529-9941
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
> Of Godmar Back
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:51 AM
> To: Evan Simpson
> Cc: libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: [LibX] ILL support
>
> On the topic of ILL support (raised in a separate thread), I'd like to
> note that LibX could support ILL in the following way:
>
> Many institutions appear to be using ILLiad, which uses
> OpenURL-compatible query syntax. In fact, many institutions' ILLiad
> server is listed in the OpenURL registry (where the edition builder
> will find it and offer to import it), and those whose ILLiad server is
> not can easily configure it as a second OpenURL resolver. Given that
> we therefore could easily achieve the ability to configure ILL ability
> for many editions, I'm wondering how to use it.
>
> On which pages would you like your users to alert to the possibility
> that they could obtain an item via ILL? Where do you get most ILL
> requests from?
>
>  - Godmar
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From godmar at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 10:54:48 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:54:48 -0400
Subject: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities
In-Reply-To: <CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB408F@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4073@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F55@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB408F@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806121054y5746d2b3i167f4e9fb5899e6f@mail.gmail.com>

To reply to only one of Leonard's points:

Please bug Serials Solutions to finally provide statistics by sid.
I actually think they do partially, they just don't list all sids.
Somebody with access to the "client center" care to comment?

 - Godmar

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Leonard, Kirsten A. <kaleonar at iuk.edu> wrote:
> I think I've not done a good job of explaining the purpose.  There isn't any set number or level that justifies the project, it's more that there is a culture that it is not sufficient to innovate but we must also show that our users are positively impacted by our innovation.  This is not limited to our institution, but any institution going through re-accreditation right now, but it is not required for every single product or service.  I agree completely that downloads are not a sufficient measure of impact alone.  The one area that Godmar mentioned that really got me excited in particular was the ability to count the retention and on-going usage of the extension, which I think is more useful.
>
> I will certainly explore some of the options suggested for gathering data ourselves and I appreciate everyone's help, but a few of the better ones aren't open to us hence my interest in what Godmar had suggested as possibilties.  For example, we just moved from SFX to Serials Solutions which unfortunately does not give stats by SID and we can't get OpenURL statistics from our ILL form.
>
> The ability to provide usage statistics is a priority for many library products and services, and becoming more so - for example the strong interest in the COUNTER standard and various products such as Scholarly Stats to record database usage, so I wouldn't like to see usage considered unimportant or just a local concern.  I do get your point about supporting innovation and development first but reviewing what has been accomplished is also useful to fuel more innovation.  I plan to do some small user studies to see how people are using the toolbar, what features they particularly like, and what features they would want to see in future versions of the toolbar.
>
> --Kirsten
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kirsten Leonard
> Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
> Assistant Director of Institutional Research
> Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
> 2300 South Washington St.
> Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
> kaleonar at iuk.edu
> (765)455-9346
> Fax (765)455-9276
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belvadi, Melissa [mailto:mbelvadi at maryville.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:16 PM
> To: Leonard, Kirsten A.; libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: assessment and libx priorities
>
> Well, I would like to argue the opposite, at least as regards to libx
> development priorities. Assessment is a local problem, and there are
> plenty of local solutions (see below). I would much rather the libx
> development team concentrate on doing what I can't do for myself/my
> library, which is adding new useful features, and improving the
> heuristics for the existing features.
>
> What local solutions are there for assessment?
> 1. your openurl server should be able to report incoming links by SID,
> so it will give you libx-generated hits into it
> 2. you can set up a simple hit counter (or use Google Analytics for more
> sophisticated analysis) with your own web page that leads to the
> download links for the plugin, to get usage data on who installs it (or
> shows interest in it). If you really need very precise data on
> downloads, you can probably also arrange to copy the actual installation
> programs (eg the .xpi file for FF) to your own server so that your own
> server's weblogs can count the actual downloads for you.
> 3. you can set up on your own local web site a very simple proxy-like
> pass-through site for your catalog etc. links so that every instance of
> using libx to search your catalog or whatever gets recorded in a local
> hit log.
>
> I'm sure other people on this list can offer other ideas on how to
> locally to count these things, and other things you might want to count.
>
> The important point to remember is that Libx.org is NOT a for-profit
> vendor, just making a product for a market. They need us to use the
> product yes, of course, so it has to meet our core needs, but they are
> also a research project and have to balance the larger goals of the
> project with our day-to-day desiderata. We're participants in research,
> and need to be a bit more flexible and creative on our side too. Maybe
> some day, like the original Mozilla, it will get spun off into a
> commercial product (like Netscape did) and then we can expect all of the
> usual kinds of services we expect of our other commercial vendors.  If
> your institutional management is so inflexible that it can't understand
> the value of being such a participant even if it means that they won't
> get the usual commercially-available usage data, then maybe your
> internal culture isn't appropriate for such participation. I don't mean
> that in a nasty way, but a serious one. There have been times that I've
> turned down beta participation in interesting projects because I knew my
> internal culture couldn't support the instability, however beneficial I
> thought such participation might be for some patrons.
>
> Melissa Belvadi
> Systems and Services Librarian
> Maryville University
> 650 Maryville University Dr.
> St. Louis, MO 63141
> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
> ph: 314-529-9531
> fax: 314-529-9941
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
> Of Leonard, Kirsten A.
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: Re: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6
>
> I'd like to chime in for the request for assessment data.  On our campus
> this is a very high priority and we are required to justify new
> projects.  Comparisons for downloads and usage as new versions come out
> may also be useful for assessing individual features.  Frankly, for me,
> the assessment is the highest priority, much more so than new features.
> I also have to prove impact as part of my annual review process and
> usage stats are one of the strongest types of evidence that I can
> provide.
>
> --Kirsten
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kirsten Leonard
> Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
> Assistant Director of Institutional Research
> Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
> 2300 South Washington St.
> Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
> kaleonar at iuk.edu
> (765)455-9346
> Fax (765)455-9276
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From rossfsinger at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 11:03:12 2008
From: rossfsinger at gmail.com (Ross Singer)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:03:12 -0400
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
In-Reply-To: <719dced30806121051x147316c4seda43cf64cfd642d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<719dced30806121051x147316c4seda43cf64cfd642d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23b83f160806121103u7bdb4c1akf78ae63e58bd604d@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clear the record here, I think most commercial link resolvers
have the option of suppressing ILL if there's a match in electronic or
print holdings.

Most libraries disable that, however, because of the frequency of
false positives at the electronic and print level.  When I initially
rolled out the Umlaut at Georgia Tech, there was an uproar over the
fact that I had disabled ILL if there were any matches to the incoming
citation.  I finally caved an added it to the 'Need help?' page (since
I figured they could add text to guide the user to ILL in the event of
a database claiming it had an article that actually didn't -- instead
of just randomly giving them the option all the time).

-Ross.

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Godmar Back <godmar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Those are good thoughts, but:
>
> Your OpenURL server is unique (thanks to you, Melissa) in that it
> actually checks what you own before offering ILL. Most OpenURL servers
> don't, however. (Which makes me wonder why there isn't an outcry from
> ILL departments flooded with requests for items already owned. Maybe
> it's because they offer this option last, usually.)
>
> The PMID and DOI case can be handled in LibX logic, either by ignoring
> those OpenURLs or by actually looking up the metadata. If I recall,
> both identifiers can be resolved with web services.
>
> So, let me rephrase the question. Assuming that the problems above can
> be tackled, are there places where pointing to ILL would be good or
> preferable to OpenURL?
>
> One that comes to mind is seller sites (once we connect them to a
> holdings check); for most of those sites, and for most OpenURL
> resolvers out there, ILL is really the only option.
>
>  - Godmar
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Belvadi, Melissa
> <mbelvadi at maryville.edu> wrote:
>> We use ILLiad, and we have its openurl-compliant capability linked
>> through our openurl server results. I wouldn't want to have patrons go
>> straight to ILLiad through some other link and bypass the openurl
>> server, for a few reasons. The first is of course inappropriate requests
>> for things we actually own. The second is that I don't believe ILLiad
>> supports lookups for things like DOI and PMID, as our openurl server
>> does, so the user needs the openurl server to handle fetching the proper
>> complete citation for ILLiad. The third is that the openurl server
>> offers other options that might serve the patron better than waiting for
>> the ILL request to complete (eg. links to other area openurl servers
>> where they might have borrowing/online privileges) which they wouldn't
>> see if they went straight to the ILLiad request form.
>>
>>
>> Melissa Belvadi
>> Systems and Services Librarian
>> Maryville University
>> 650 Maryville University Dr.
>> St. Louis, MO 63141
>> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
>> ph: 314-529-9531
>> fax: 314-529-9941
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
>> Of Godmar Back
>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:51 AM
>> To: Evan Simpson
>> Cc: libx at mozdev.org
>> Subject: [LibX] ILL support
>>
>> On the topic of ILL support (raised in a separate thread), I'd like to
>> note that LibX could support ILL in the following way:
>>
>> Many institutions appear to be using ILLiad, which uses
>> OpenURL-compatible query syntax. In fact, many institutions' ILLiad
>> server is listed in the OpenURL registry (where the edition builder
>> will find it and offer to import it), and those whose ILLiad server is
>> not can easily configure it as a second OpenURL resolver. Given that
>> we therefore could easily achieve the ability to configure ILL ability
>> for many editions, I'm wondering how to use it.
>>
>> On which pages would you like your users to alert to the possibility
>> that they could obtain an item via ILL? Where do you get most ILL
>> requests from?
>>
>>  - Godmar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libx mailing list
>> Libx at mozdev.org
>> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From kaleonar at iuk.edu  Thu Jun 12 11:08:17 2008
From: kaleonar at iuk.edu (Leonard, Kirsten A.)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:08:17 -0400
Subject: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities
In-Reply-To: <719dced30806121054y5746d2b3i167f4e9fb5899e6f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4073@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F55@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB408F@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
	<719dced30806121054y5746d2b3i167f4e9fb5899e6f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4097@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>

I had requested this enhancement of Serials Solutions in February- see below for their response.  I echo Godmar's request though to have everyone put more pressure on Serials Solutions to provide it.

--Kirsten
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Leonard
Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
Assistant Director of Institutional Research
Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
2300 South Washington St.
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
kaleonar at iuk.edu
(765)455-9346
Fax (765)455-9276

     Usage statistics for Libx toolbar

  Discussion Thread
 Response (cphillippe) 02/06/2008 09:20 AM
Kirsten,

Currently, 360 Link does not keep track of which providers queries come from. This would include a tool like LibX. Adding the ability to track this statistical data is being looked at by our development team, but I cannot say if or when this will be released.

Thank you,

Chris

Christopher Phillippe, MSLIS
Senior Library Support Analyst
Serials Solutions
1.866.737.4257, ext. 4
clients at serialssolutions.com

 Customer (Kirsten Leonard) 02/05/2008 03:30 PM
I'm creating a libx toolbar (libx.org) for IU Kokomo and I would like to record hits to the 360 Link coming from this tool. Their web page (http://libx.org/faq.html) suggests that is possible if we notify Serials Solutions:
"In addition to making sure users will see the correct links to the library's electronic holdings, we also like to get accurate statistics about how users are using LibX. For systems that are hosted by an outside provider (e.g., Serials Solutions) you'll have to contact the provider to record hits coming from LibX. As LibX becomes more widely adopted, we hope that those providers will provide support for it by default."
Is is possible to get statistics on referring SIDs to Link? I would be very interested in having this information as we were able to get this from SFX.

Thank you!

--Kirsten




-----Original Message-----
From: Godmar Back [mailto:godmar at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:55 PM
To: Leonard, Kirsten A.
Cc: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: Re: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities

To reply to only one of Leonard's points:

Please bug Serials Solutions to finally provide statistics by sid.
I actually think they do partially, they just don't list all sids.
Somebody with access to the "client center" care to comment?

 - Godmar

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Leonard, Kirsten A. <kaleonar at iuk.edu> wrote:
> I think I've not done a good job of explaining the purpose.  There isn't any set number or level that justifies the project, it's more that there is a culture that it is not sufficient to innovate but we must also show that our users are positively impacted by our innovation.  This is not limited to our institution, but any institution going through re-accreditation right now, but it is not required for every single product or service.  I agree completely that downloads are not a sufficient measure of impact alone.  The one area that Godmar mentioned that really got me excited in particular was the ability to count the retention and on-going usage of the extension, which I think is more useful.
>
> I will certainly explore some of the options suggested for gathering data ourselves and I appreciate everyone's help, but a few of the better ones aren't open to us hence my interest in what Godmar had suggested as possibilties.  For example, we just moved from SFX to Serials Solutions which unfortunately does not give stats by SID and we can't get OpenURL statistics from our ILL form.
>
> The ability to provide usage statistics is a priority for many library products and services, and becoming more so - for example the strong interest in the COUNTER standard and various products such as Scholarly Stats to record database usage, so I wouldn't like to see usage considered unimportant or just a local concern.  I do get your point about supporting innovation and development first but reviewing what has been accomplished is also useful to fuel more innovation.  I plan to do some small user studies to see how people are using the toolbar, what features they particularly like, and what features they would want to see in future versions of the toolbar.
>
> --Kirsten
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kirsten Leonard
> Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
> Assistant Director of Institutional Research
> Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
> 2300 South Washington St.
> Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
> kaleonar at iuk.edu
> (765)455-9346
> Fax (765)455-9276
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belvadi, Melissa [mailto:mbelvadi at maryville.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:16 PM
> To: Leonard, Kirsten A.; libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: assessment and libx priorities
>
> Well, I would like to argue the opposite, at least as regards to libx
> development priorities. Assessment is a local problem, and there are
> plenty of local solutions (see below). I would much rather the libx
> development team concentrate on doing what I can't do for myself/my
> library, which is adding new useful features, and improving the
> heuristics for the existing features.
>
> What local solutions are there for assessment?
> 1. your openurl server should be able to report incoming links by SID,
> so it will give you libx-generated hits into it
> 2. you can set up a simple hit counter (or use Google Analytics for more
> sophisticated analysis) with your own web page that leads to the
> download links for the plugin, to get usage data on who installs it (or
> shows interest in it). If you really need very precise data on
> downloads, you can probably also arrange to copy the actual installation
> programs (eg the .xpi file for FF) to your own server so that your own
> server's weblogs can count the actual downloads for you.
> 3. you can set up on your own local web site a very simple proxy-like
> pass-through site for your catalog etc. links so that every instance of
> using libx to search your catalog or whatever gets recorded in a local
> hit log.
>
> I'm sure other people on this list can offer other ideas on how to
> locally to count these things, and other things you might want to count.
>
> The important point to remember is that Libx.org is NOT a for-profit
> vendor, just making a product for a market. They need us to use the
> product yes, of course, so it has to meet our core needs, but they are
> also a research project and have to balance the larger goals of the
> project with our day-to-day desiderata. We're participants in research,
> and need to be a bit more flexible and creative on our side too. Maybe
> some day, like the original Mozilla, it will get spun off into a
> commercial product (like Netscape did) and then we can expect all of the
> usual kinds of services we expect of our other commercial vendors.  If
> your institutional management is so inflexible that it can't understand
> the value of being such a participant even if it means that they won't
> get the usual commercially-available usage data, then maybe your
> internal culture isn't appropriate for such participation. I don't mean
> that in a nasty way, but a serious one. There have been times that I've
> turned down beta participation in interesting projects because I knew my
> internal culture couldn't support the instability, however beneficial I
> thought such participation might be for some patrons.
>
> Melissa Belvadi
> Systems and Services Librarian
> Maryville University
> 650 Maryville University Dr.
> St. Louis, MO 63141
> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
> ph: 314-529-9531
> fax: 314-529-9941
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
> Of Leonard, Kirsten A.
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: Re: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6
>
> I'd like to chime in for the request for assessment data.  On our campus
> this is a very high priority and we are required to justify new
> projects.  Comparisons for downloads and usage as new versions come out
> may also be useful for assessing individual features.  Frankly, for me,
> the assessment is the highest priority, much more so than new features.
> I also have to prove impact as part of my annual review process and
> usage stats are one of the strongest types of evidence that I can
> provide.
>
> --Kirsten
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kirsten Leonard
> Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
> Assistant Director of Institutional Research
> Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
> 2300 South Washington St.
> Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
> kaleonar at iuk.edu
> (765)455-9346
> Fax (765)455-9276
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From jmc at virginia.edu  Thu Jun 12 11:12:26 2008
From: jmc at virginia.edu (Campbell, James (jmc))
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:12:26 -0400
Subject: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities
In-Reply-To: <719dced30806121054y5746d2b3i167f4e9fb5899e6f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.23.1213210818.25365.libx@mozdev.org>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB4073@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F55@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB408F@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>
	<719dced30806121054y5746d2b3i167f4e9fb5899e6f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E10861C3437B3943AF0134044D6EB1001761E59EE4@COLUMBO.eservices.virginia.edu>

Serials Solutions offers stats only on destinations, not on sources.  They used to track the SID, but that disappeared from the stats when they moved last year to a new interface in the Client Center.  I complained and was told it would reappear someday, but I'm still waiting. If you're a SerSol customer and haven't yet complained, please add your voice - clients at serialssolutions.com.

On assessment: my library is heavily involved in a culture of assessment and has been a leader in LibQUAL, but there is some understanding that it is to be applied judiciously. Godmar and team have done such a great job of keeping LibX simple that our total investment in LibX over the year or so we've had it is probably around 3 hours of staff time, all mine, most of it in the first week, plus the cost of hosting one Web page.  Anecdotally I'm pretty sure we have at least 50 users. There are certainly at least 30 in the library staff (I hear from them when the Amazon cues break). So I'd say we've gotten our money's worth, though I'd still like to know how Harvard and MIT got those thousands of downloads.

      - Jim Campbell

      Digital Access Librarian | Librarian for German
      University of Virginia Library | Charlottesville, VA 22904-4112

      513 Alderman | campbell at virginia.edu | 434-924-4985


-----Original Message-----
From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf Of Godmar Back
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:55 PM
To: Leonard, Kirsten A.
Cc: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: Re: [LibX] assessment and libx priorities

To reply to only one of Leonard's points:

Please bug Serials Solutions to finally provide statistics by sid.
I actually think they do partially, they just don't list all sids.
Somebody with access to the "client center" care to comment?

 - Godmar

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Leonard, Kirsten A. <kaleonar at iuk.edu> wrote:
> I think I've not done a good job of explaining the purpose.  There isn't any set number or level that justifies the project, it's more that there is a culture that it is not sufficient to innovate but we must also show that our users are positively impacted by our innovation.  This is not limited to our institution, but any institution going through re-accreditation right now, but it is not required for every single product or service.  I agree completely that downloads are not a sufficient measure of impact alone.  The one area that Godmar mentioned that really got me excited in particular was the ability to count the retention and on-going usage of the extension, which I think is more useful.
>
> I will certainly explore some of the options suggested for gathering data ourselves and I appreciate everyone's help, but a few of the better ones aren't open to us hence my interest in what Godmar had suggested as possibilties.  For example, we just moved from SFX to Serials Solutions which unfortunately does not give stats by SID and we can't get OpenURL statistics from our ILL form.
>
> The ability to provide usage statistics is a priority for many library products and services, and becoming more so - for example the strong interest in the COUNTER standard and various products such as Scholarly Stats to record database usage, so I wouldn't like to see usage considered unimportant or just a local concern.  I do get your point about supporting innovation and development first but reviewing what has been accomplished is also useful to fuel more innovation.  I plan to do some small user studies to see how people are using the toolbar, what features they particularly like, and what features they would want to see in future versions of the toolbar.
>
> --Kirsten
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kirsten Leonard
> Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
> Assistant Director of Institutional Research
> Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
> 2300 South Washington St.
> Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
> kaleonar at iuk.edu
> (765)455-9346
> Fax (765)455-9276
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belvadi, Melissa [mailto:mbelvadi at maryville.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:16 PM
> To: Leonard, Kirsten A.; libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: assessment and libx priorities
>
> Well, I would like to argue the opposite, at least as regards to libx
> development priorities. Assessment is a local problem, and there are
> plenty of local solutions (see below). I would much rather the libx
> development team concentrate on doing what I can't do for myself/my
> library, which is adding new useful features, and improving the
> heuristics for the existing features.
>
> What local solutions are there for assessment?
> 1. your openurl server should be able to report incoming links by SID,
> so it will give you libx-generated hits into it
> 2. you can set up a simple hit counter (or use Google Analytics for more
> sophisticated analysis) with your own web page that leads to the
> download links for the plugin, to get usage data on who installs it (or
> shows interest in it). If you really need very precise data on
> downloads, you can probably also arrange to copy the actual installation
> programs (eg the .xpi file for FF) to your own server so that your own
> server's weblogs can count the actual downloads for you.
> 3. you can set up on your own local web site a very simple proxy-like
> pass-through site for your catalog etc. links so that every instance of
> using libx to search your catalog or whatever gets recorded in a local
> hit log.
>
> I'm sure other people on this list can offer other ideas on how to
> locally to count these things, and other things you might want to count.
>
> The important point to remember is that Libx.org is NOT a for-profit
> vendor, just making a product for a market. They need us to use the
> product yes, of course, so it has to meet our core needs, but they are
> also a research project and have to balance the larger goals of the
> project with our day-to-day desiderata. We're participants in research,
> and need to be a bit more flexible and creative on our side too. Maybe
> some day, like the original Mozilla, it will get spun off into a
> commercial product (like Netscape did) and then we can expect all of the
> usual kinds of services we expect of our other commercial vendors.  If
> your institutional management is so inflexible that it can't understand
> the value of being such a participant even if it means that they won't
> get the usual commercially-available usage data, then maybe your
> internal culture isn't appropriate for such participation. I don't mean
> that in a nasty way, but a serious one. There have been times that I've
> turned down beta participation in interesting projects because I knew my
> internal culture couldn't support the instability, however beneficial I
> thought such participation might be for some patrons.
>
> Melissa Belvadi
> Systems and Services Librarian
> Maryville University
> 650 Maryville University Dr.
> St. Louis, MO 63141
> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
> ph: 314-529-9531
> fax: 314-529-9941
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
> Of Leonard, Kirsten A.
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: Re: [LibX] Libx Digest, Vol 23, Issue 6
>
> I'd like to chime in for the request for assessment data.  On our campus
> this is a very high priority and we are required to justify new
> projects.  Comparisons for downloads and usage as new versions come out
> may also be useful for assessing individual features.  Frankly, for me,
> the assessment is the highest priority, much more so than new features.
> I also have to prove impact as part of my annual review process and
> usage stats are one of the strongest types of evidence that I can
> provide.
>
> --Kirsten
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kirsten Leonard
> Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
> Assistant Director of Institutional Research
> Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
> 2300 South Washington St.
> Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
> kaleonar at iuk.edu
> (765)455-9346
> Fax (765)455-9276
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>
_______________________________________________
Libx mailing list
Libx at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx

From godmar at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 11:25:33 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:25:33 -0400
Subject: [LibX] download statistics via Google analytics
Message-ID: <719dced30806121125x474de0cbrbaac5117f38ca1a2@mail.gmail.com>

To address another point Melissa's made:

We could add support for Google Analytics to the boilerplate download
page if somebody explains to us how this works, maybe by example.

This way, maintainers could receive download statistics without
requiring any log processing on libx, simply by counting the
through-click on the download page.

 - Godmar

From mbelvadi at maryville.edu  Thu Jun 12 12:53:06 2008
From: mbelvadi at maryville.edu (Belvadi, Melissa)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:53:06 -0500
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
References: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<719dced30806121051x147316c4seda43cf64cfd642d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F5B@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>

I think that most commercial openurl systems (definitely including
SerSol, I know for sure) offer libraries the option to maintain their
local (print) holdings in the knowledge base, but I get the impression
that a lot of libraries don't bother.  We can criticize SerSol for not
providing a report by incoming SID, but not for the local holdings
problem. And openurl systems like Innovative's (III's) that are
integrated into their OPAC definitely include local holdings.

It might be nice to have LibX do the DOI and PMID lookups (it's simple
XML by the way, I can send you the perl code from my openurl server as
an example). I have no sense of how many commercial openurl servers will
do those lookups - I would hope that they all do, but if many don't,
having LibX do it for them would be great.

Some libraries actually have a policy of filling ILL requests regardless
of whether they own the thing. ILLiad makes it so easy to process a
request that it's actually more staff work to verify whether a library
owns something and send the "sorry we can't fill this - you have to come
in any copy it yourself" message than to just send the request through
the system. Libraries that use OCLC's "direct request" service in OCLC
and "trusted lenders" in ILLiad/Odyssey could very well have huge
numbers of requests that pass straight through their system from request
creation to online delivery without any of their staff ever touching the
request in any way at all and a lot of those requests may be things that
they own.

By "seller sites" I assume that you mostly mean publishers' sites, like
Wiley, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by a "holdings" check. Are you
considering a feature that would actually check our openurl holdings in
the background and only offer them the embedded cue if we don't show
holdings? 

I have thought that the feature that allows the user to reload the page
through their library's proxy server is a bit too complicated to explain
to most users (just explaining what the proxy server is tends to get
glazed looks even from library staff - this is the voice of experience
here), and if they don't know to use that, then a direct link to ILL
from the publisher site could also result in requests that could have
been immediately satisfied with a link to the openurl server instead (as
the openurl server might have given them a nice proxied link right back
to where they were to get the article).
But maybe I don't have the right mental vision of what you have in mind.

Melissa

-----Original Message-----
From: Godmar Back [mailto:godmar at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:51 PM
To: Belvadi, Melissa
Cc: libx at mozdev.org
Subject: Re: [LibX] ILL support

Those are good thoughts, but:

Your OpenURL server is unique (thanks to you, Melissa) in that it
actually checks what you own before offering ILL. Most OpenURL servers
don't, however. (Which makes me wonder why there isn't an outcry from
ILL departments flooded with requests for items already owned. Maybe
it's because they offer this option last, usually.)

The PMID and DOI case can be handled in LibX logic, either by ignoring
those OpenURLs or by actually looking up the metadata. If I recall,
both identifiers can be resolved with web services.

So, let me rephrase the question. Assuming that the problems above can
be tackled, are there places where pointing to ILL would be good or
preferable to OpenURL?

One that comes to mind is seller sites (once we connect them to a
holdings check); for most of those sites, and for most OpenURL
resolvers out there, ILL is really the only option.

 - Godmar

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Belvadi, Melissa
<mbelvadi at maryville.edu> wrote:
> We use ILLiad, and we have its openurl-compliant capability linked
> through our openurl server results. I wouldn't want to have patrons go
> straight to ILLiad through some other link and bypass the openurl
> server, for a few reasons. The first is of course inappropriate
requests
> for things we actually own. The second is that I don't believe ILLiad
> supports lookups for things like DOI and PMID, as our openurl server
> does, so the user needs the openurl server to handle fetching the
proper
> complete citation for ILLiad. The third is that the openurl server
> offers other options that might serve the patron better than waiting
for
> the ILL request to complete (eg. links to other area openurl servers
> where they might have borrowing/online privileges) which they wouldn't
> see if they went straight to the ILLiad request form.
>
>
> Melissa Belvadi
> Systems and Services Librarian
> Maryville University
> 650 Maryville University Dr.
> St. Louis, MO 63141
> mbelvadi at maryville.edu
> ph: 314-529-9531
> fax: 314-529-9941
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On
Behalf
> Of Godmar Back
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:51 AM
> To: Evan Simpson
> Cc: libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: [LibX] ILL support
>
> On the topic of ILL support (raised in a separate thread), I'd like to
> note that LibX could support ILL in the following way:
>
> Many institutions appear to be using ILLiad, which uses
> OpenURL-compatible query syntax. In fact, many institutions' ILLiad
> server is listed in the OpenURL registry (where the edition builder
> will find it and offer to import it), and those whose ILLiad server is
> not can easily configure it as a second OpenURL resolver. Given that
> we therefore could easily achieve the ability to configure ILL ability
> for many editions, I'm wondering how to use it.
>
> On which pages would you like your users to alert to the possibility
> that they could obtain an item via ILL? Where do you get most ILL
> requests from?
>
>  - Godmar
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From godmar at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 13:04:18 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:04:18 -0400
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
In-Reply-To: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F5B@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
References: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<719dced30806121051x147316c4seda43cf64cfd642d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F5B@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806121304v11ea0c47ic1d2e16ee8625642@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Belvadi, Melissa
<mbelvadi at maryville.edu> wrote:
> I think that most commercial openurl systems (definitely including
> SerSol, I know for sure) offer libraries the option to maintain their
> local (print) holdings in the knowledge base, but I get the impression
> that a lot of libraries don't bother.
> We can criticize SerSol for not
> providing a report by incoming SID, but not for the local holdings
> problem. And openurl systems like Innovative's (III's) that are
> integrated into their OPAC definitely include local holdings.
>

That's what I thought, too, but I'm pretty certain this isn't the case.
III WebBridge is not linked to the OPAC at all. They're using a
separate database, called the "coverage database", which is separately
maintained in a process called "coverage loads."  No link to the OPAC
here.

And Serials Solutions? I understand they maintain serials holdings for
many libraries (I know that Tech's library lets SerSol maintain
theirs), but I didn't know they were prepared to hold shadow copies of
complete holdings.

> It might be nice to have LibX do the DOI and PMID lookups (it's simple
> XML by the way, I can send you the perl code from my openurl server as
> an example). I have no sense of how many commercial openurl servers will
> do those lookups - I would hope that they all do, but if many don't,
> having LibX do it for them would be great.

Actually, for LibX, I'd like to do that for the tooltip that goes over
the hyperlinked DOIs and PMIDs

>
> By "seller sites" I assume that you mostly mean publishers' sites, like
> Wiley, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by a "holdings" check. Are you
> considering a feature that would actually check our openurl holdings in
> the background and only offer them the embedded cue if we don't show
> holdings?

Yes, saying "we don't own this book, would you like us to request it for you?"

 - Godmar

From mbelvadi at maryville.edu  Thu Jun 12 13:22:31 2008
From: mbelvadi at maryville.edu (Belvadi, Melissa)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:22:31 -0500
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
References: <719dced30806120851o4bae7f02lc139306aa7b00ab4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F56@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<719dced30806121051x147316c4seda43cf64cfd642d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F5B@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>
	<719dced30806121304v11ea0c47ic1d2e16ee8625642@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F5C@NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>

I was thinking of articles rather than books. In our case, we belong to
a huge state academic consortium called MOBIUS that has a special system
for borrowing books among members, so we do very little book ILL through
ILLiad anymore. And MOBIUS doesn't have an openurl-compliant request
form (it's a III InnReach system). I think a lot of other states have
similar systems. So any such feature probably needs as an edition
configuration option to turn on/off the feature separately for books vs
articles. And if the openurl server doesn't have local holdings in it, I
don't know how you can accurately offer that for articles.

Regarding SerSol and loading local holdings directly into the knowledge
base, I just talked to a sales rep about that feature and he assured me
that they had it, but any SerSol customers out there feel free to
clarify this point.

Melissa

>> By "seller sites" I assume that you mostly mean publishers' sites,
like
> >Wiley, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by a "holdings" check. Are you
> >considering a feature that would actually check our openurl holdings
in
> >the background and only offer them the embedded cue if we don't show
>> holdings?
>
>Yes, saying "we don't own this book, would you like us to request it
for you?"
>
 >- Godmar

From kaleonar at iuk.edu  Fri Jun 13 12:52:30 2008
From: kaleonar at iuk.edu (Leonard, Kirsten A.)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 -0400
Subject: [LibX] ILL support
Message-ID: <CDF5AFD977793A42B776CA0FA22A2C780B51DB41B2@iu-mssg-mbx04.ads.iu.edu>

SerSol can definitely do article/journal local holdings - we have our print journal holdings included.  I am not sure about locally managed holdings for books or ebooks.



--Kirsten


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Leonard
Electronic Resources/Government Documents Librarian
Assistant Director of Institutional Research
Indiana University Kokomo Library, KA140B
2300 South Washington St.
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
kaleonar at iuk.edu
(765)455-9346
Fax (765)455-9276



Message: 3

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:22:31 -0500

From: "Belvadi, Melissa" <mbelvadi at maryville.edu>

Subject: Re: [LibX] ILL support

To: "Godmar Back" <godmar at gmail.com>

Cc: libx at mozdev.org

Message-ID:

        <2EC061172E57FB4E8FCEB29E1A20F643086F5C at NT6S16-MARYVM.ad.maryville.edu>



Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"





Regarding SerSol and loading local holdings directly into the knowledge

base, I just talked to a sales rep about that feature and he assured me

that they had it, but any SerSol customers out there feel free to

clarify this point.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080613/af220670/attachment.html 

From libx.org at gmail.com  Tue Jun 17 10:24:36 2008
From: libx.org at gmail.com (LibX Project)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:24:36 -0400
Subject: [LibX] LibX 1.5 for Firefox 3
Message-ID: <719dced30806171024t3dc6503di1d632371077485da@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

on Saturday, we've sent out an automated email to all maintainers of
live editions that they ensure that their edition of LibX works for FF
3.0.

This new version, which we call LibX 1.5, includes a new of small
fixes and additional customizations, but the biggest change is under
the hood: LibX 1.5 provides the ability to hot update cues. The credit
for this implementation goes to Tobias Wieschnowsky.

In this context, please make sure that your version of LibX works with
FF 3, not just FF 2. At least one edition was affected by a FF3 bug
that did not manifest when testing LibX under FF2.  In this case, the
search options label (to the left of the user input box in the
toolbar) would read "undefined" instead of Keyword etc.  I'm not
certain why this bug showed up in some editions but not others, but I
know that it is a regression bug that appears only in FF3. If your
edition is affected by this bug, a rebuild (and making the new
revision live) should fix it.

Unfortunately, the LibX IE side lagged behind these changes, so for
now we temporarily suspended LibX IE builds. We'll turn this ability
on as soon as we have updated the LibX IE codebase.

 - Godmar for the LibX Team

From godmar at gmail.com  Tue Jun 17 11:08:12 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:08:12 -0400
Subject: [LibX] directly addressing old revisions of LibX
Message-ID: <719dced30806171108v6b7180b1q2ad4aee71afd867a@mail.gmail.com>

Melissa asked how to access previous LibX IE builds. Older builds of
IE are still reachable if you specify the revision in the URL.

LibX revisions use a simple URL scheme. The revision URLs are formed as follows:

Old style edition ids:
libx.org/editions/mu/  - Live revision prefix
libx.org/editions/mu.1/ - Revision 1 prefix
libx.org/editions/mu.2/ - Revision 2 prefix
etc.

For new style ids, it's
libx.org/editions/01/23/01234567 -  Live revision prefix
libx.org/editions/01/23/01234567.1 -  Revision 1 prefix
libx.org/editions/01/23/01234567.2 -  Revision 2 prefix

The prefix refers to a directory on our server.  Append config.xml to
get the config file. Append libx-editionid.xpi to get the FF .xpi
file, and append libx-editionid.exe to get the IE build.

So for instance, http://libx.org/editions/mu.7/libx-mu.exe refers to
the downloadable IE build for edition mu, revision 7.

 - Godmar

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Belvadi, Melissa
<mbelvadi at maryville.edu> wrote:
> Is there any way we can keep older builds for IE? I rebuilt the toolbar
> for FF3 and discovered my link to the IE one is totally broken (404).
> I'd really like to be able to at least install the older IE build.
>
> Melissa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libx-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:libx-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf
> Of LibX Project
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:25 PM
> To: libx at mozdev.org
> Subject: [LibX] LibX 1.5 for Firefox 3
>
> Hi,
>
> on Saturday, we've sent out an automated email to all maintainers of
> live editions that they ensure that their edition of LibX works for FF
> 3.0.
>
> This new version, which we call LibX 1.5, includes a new of small
> fixes and additional customizations, but the biggest change is under
> the hood: LibX 1.5 provides the ability to hot update cues. The credit
> for this implementation goes to Tobias Wieschnowsky.
>
> In this context, please make sure that your version of LibX works with
> FF 3, not just FF 2. At least one edition was affected by a FF3 bug
> that did not manifest when testing LibX under FF2.  In this case, the
> search options label (to the left of the user input box in the
> toolbar) would read "undefined" instead of Keyword etc.  I'm not
> certain why this bug showed up in some editions but not others, but I
> know that it is a regression bug that appears only in FF3. If your
> edition is affected by this bug, a rebuild (and making the new
> revision live) should fix it.
>
> Unfortunately, the LibX IE side lagged behind these changes, so for
> now we temporarily suspended LibX IE builds. We'll turn this ability
> on as soon as we have updated the LibX IE codebase.
>
>  - Godmar for the LibX Team
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>

From weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu  Fri Jun 20 08:30:36 2008
From: weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu (Victoria Lin)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:36 -0400
Subject: [LibX] embedded Cues in Global Books in Print
In-Reply-To: <719dced30806171024t3dc6503di1d632371077485da@mail.gmail.co
 m>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20080620112003.035bf770@hulmail.harvard.edu>

Hi, I was testing the new LibX 1.5 with both Firefox 2 and Firefox 3. I 
notice one problem with the embedded cues in "Global Books in Print". In 
our current edition built in this April, on the search results page, click 
on Harvard icon, it goes to our catalog. But with the new version both in 
Firefox 2 and 3, when click on the Harvard icon (though when mouseover the 
icon, it shows the url of our catalog) it goes to the book record of Global 
Books in Print, have to click on ISBN to go to our catalog. Is Global Books 
in Print still supposed?

thanks,


_________________________________

Victoria Lin
phone: 617-495-3724
email: weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu

Harvard University Library
Office for Information Systems
90 Mt. Auburn Street
Cambridge, MA. 02138



From TKnight at osgoode.yorku.ca  Fri Jun 20 12:30:02 2008
From: TKnight at osgoode.yorku.ca (Tim Knight/osgoode)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:30:02 -0400
Subject: [LibX] embedded Cues in Global Books in Print
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20080620112003.035bf770@hulmail.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <OFD4D5DA9E.AA077487-ON8525746E.006AFD4A-8525746E.006B1D23@osgoode.yorku.ca>

Yes, looks like we have the same problem.  The link goes to BIP record not 
the catalogue.
Tim

----------------->
F. Tim Knight, Head of Technical Services
Osgoode Hall Law School Library
York University
tknight at osgoode.yorku.ca
(416) 650-8403    Fax:  (416) 736-5298
http://library.osgoode.yorku.ca
---------------------------------->

libx-bounces at mozdev.org wrote on 06/20/2008 11:30:36 AM:

> Hi, I was testing the new LibX 1.5 with both Firefox 2 and Firefox 3. I 
> notice one problem with the embedded cues in "Global Books in Print". In 

> our current edition built in this April, on the search results page, 
click 
> on Harvard icon, it goes to our catalog. But with the new version both 
in 
> Firefox 2 and 3, when click on the Harvard icon (though when mouseover 
the 
> icon, it shows the url of our catalog) it goes to the book record of 
Global 
> Books in Print, have to click on ISBN to go to our catalog. Is Global 
Books 
> in Print still supposed?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 
> _________________________________
> 
> Victoria Lin
> phone: 617-495-3724
> email: weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu
> 
> Harvard University Library
> Office for Information Systems
> 90 Mt. Auburn Street
> Cambridge, MA. 02138
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080620/dccac1a1/attachment.html 

From libx.org at gmail.com  Fri Jun 20 13:48:23 2008
From: libx.org at gmail.com (LibX Project)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:48:23 -0400
Subject: [LibX] LibX Account
In-Reply-To: <282A85121F07BF4E85626A53DC466756E71D36@uismail3.uisad.uis.edu>
References: <282A85121F07BF4E85626A53DC466756E71D36@uismail3.uisad.uis.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806201348r64a6afb5i66ebfd2e7acf454e@mail.gmail.com>

[ I'm answering this question for the list because others may
encounter similar scenarios ]

The edition builder has a way to transfer ownerships of editions.  To
transfer ownership, both the old and new owner must be registered. The
old owner must then log on, select the edition to be transferred, and
select "transfer ownership" and provide the new owners email address.
(That email address must match a registered user's, which is why the
new owner must register first.)

If you select the "Retain ownership" checkbox, you can use this
procedure to have shared ownership, which is what many of you have
already done.

So, if you are still able to reach Denise, please follow this procedure.

If not, contact us at libx.org at gmail.com

 - Godmar

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Salm, Timothy <tsalm2 at uis.edu> wrote:
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
>
>
> My name is Tim Salm and I am the new Library Technology Coordinator at the
> University of Illinois at Springfield (UIS). My former colleague, Denise
> Green, was the contact person for our LibX account. Can you please provide
> the username and password associated with the account (as Greene has left
> the employment of UIS)? Thank you in advance.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
>
> Tim Salm
>
> Library Technology Coordinator
>
> Norris L. Brookens Library
>
> University of Illinois at Springfield
>
> One University Plaza, MS BRK 140
>
> Springfield, IL   62703-5407
>
> Office: (217) 206-8438
>
> Fax: (217) 206-6208
>
> http://library.uis.edu/
>
> *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
>
>

From kgoldbec at vt.edu  Fri Jun 20 14:18:51 2008
From: kgoldbec at vt.edu (Goldbeck, Kyrille)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:18:51 -0400
Subject: [LibX] LibX Request For User Study Participation
Message-ID: <34C1AF2102DAFD4AA48864005D6789A803C3239F@elessar.cc.w2k.vt.edu>

Apologies for cross-postings, but if you are a LibX edition maintainer
and a subscriber to this list, you may receive 2 copies of this notice:

 

Dear Members of the LibX community,

 

The LibX Team is in the process of evaluating the user satisfaction and
usability of the LibX Edition Builder.  We have developed an online
survey to help us determine the strengths and weaknesses of the LibX
Edition Builder interface.  This survey should take approximately 20
minutes to complete.  Additional information about the questions and
purpose of this study is located throughout the text of the survey.

 

If you are interested in giving us your feedback, please go to the
survey located at:
https://survey.vt.edu/survey/entry.jsp?id=1207846487372

 

Thank you for your time and input.

The LibX Team

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Kyrille Goldbeck
College Librarian for Natural Resources
University Libraries (0434)
P.O. box 90001
Blacksburg, VA 24062-9001

4005 Newman Library / 315B Cheatham Hall
    (540) 231-0495      /     (540) 231-0419
                    kgoldbec at vt.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080620/2472247e/attachment.html 

From gbunton at odu.edu  Fri Jun 20 15:25:12 2008
From: gbunton at odu.edu (Glenn Bunton)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:25:12 -0400
Subject: [LibX] Version question
In-Reply-To: <34C1AF2102DAFD4AA48864005D6789A803C3239F@elessar.cc.w2k.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <OFED202D84.BA439D88-ON8525746E.007AEEAB-8525746E.007B28B2@notes.odu.edu>

Hi all,

Just trying to get up to speed. Possibly a silly question. I noticed
various "version" numbers for all the different public sites. Are those
version numbers specific to those locations or is there an actual
"versioning" for libx in general that I should be paying attention to. For
example if we have version 1.1 is that just because we haven't done any
customizing at this point or are we missing something?

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

==================================
Mr. Glenn Bunton
Head of Systems Development
Old Dominion University Libraries
Norfolk, Virginia 23529
gbunton at odu.edu
(757) 683-5952
===================================


From libx.org at gmail.com  Fri Jun 20 15:58:39 2008
From: libx.org at gmail.com (LibX Project)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:58:39 -0400
Subject: [LibX] Version question
In-Reply-To: <OFED202D84.BA439D88-ON8525746E.007AEEAB-8525746E.007B28B2@notes.odu.edu>
References: <34C1AF2102DAFD4AA48864005D6789A803C3239F@elessar.cc.w2k.vt.edu>
	<OFED202D84.BA439D88-ON8525746E.007AEEAB-8525746E.007B28B2@notes.odu.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806201558w53009384uc87de7b23ff7319e@mail.gmail.com>

If you haven't used the edition builder, you probably have a 1.1 number.
Since the introduction of the edition builder, LibX Versions are specific to
a particular edition.

Right now, they are 1.5.REVISIONNUMBER.  So if you build revision 1, your
version number of 1.5.1, revision #2, 1.5.2 and so on.  We may increase the
version number to 1.6 in the future, then your revision #3 might be 1.6.3.

This is not something you need to pay attention to --- it's only used by the
update system internally. As soon as you open a revision to work on it, its
internal version number is updated.

 - Godmar

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Glenn Bunton <gbunton at odu.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just trying to get up to speed. Possibly a silly question. I noticed
> various "version" numbers for all the different public sites. Are those
> version numbers specific to those locations or is there an actual
> "versioning" for libx in general that I should be paying attention to. For
> example if we have version 1.1 is that just because we haven't done any
> customizing at this point or are we missing something?
>
> Thanks in advance for any guidance.
>
> ==================================
> Mr. Glenn Bunton
> Head of Systems Development
> Old Dominion University Libraries
> Norfolk, Virginia 23529
> gbunton at odu.edu
> (757) 683-5952
> ===================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080620/b1518984/attachment.html 

From godmar at gmail.com  Sun Jun 22 08:18:24 2008
From: godmar at gmail.com (Godmar Back)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:18:24 -0400
Subject: [LibX] embedded Cues in Global Books in Print
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20080620112003.035bf770@hulmail.harvard.edu>
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20080620112003.035bf770@hulmail.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <719dced30806220818s753d1dedh448ce40a0541bb41@mail.gmail.com>

Fixed --- the update should propagate automatically within the next 24
hours. If you'd like to test right away, choose LibX Preferences -> Cue
Options -> Update Cues.

NB: there's a bug in the update mechanism that prevents cue updates from
being effective in the current browser window.  You need to open a new
browser window (Ctrl-N) for the updated cue to be effective. Tobias is
fixing this bug right now.

 - Godmar

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Victoria Lin <weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu>
wrote:

> Hi, I was testing the new LibX 1.5 with both Firefox 2 and Firefox 3. I
> notice one problem with the embedded cues in "Global Books in Print". In
> our current edition built in this April, on the search results page, click
> on Harvard icon, it goes to our catalog. But with the new version both in
> Firefox 2 and 3, when click on the Harvard icon (though when mouseover the
> icon, it shows the url of our catalog) it goes to the book record of Global
> Books in Print, have to click on ISBN to go to our catalog. Is Global Books
> in Print still supposed?
>
> thanks,
>
>
> _________________________________
>
> Victoria Lin
> phone: 617-495-3724
> email: weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu
>
> Harvard University Library
> Office for Information Systems
> 90 Mt. Auburn Street
> Cambridge, MA. 02138
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libx mailing list
> Libx at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080622/37b4a404/attachment.html 

From weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu  Mon Jun 23 06:28:20 2008
From: weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu (Victoria Lin)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:28:20 -0400
Subject: [LibX] embedded Cues in Global Books in Print
In-Reply-To: <719dced30806220818s753d1dedh448ce40a0541bb41@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5.2.1.1.2.20080620112003.035bf770@hulmail.harvard.edu>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20080620112003.035bf770@hulmail.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20080623092755.036f8aa0@hulmail.harvard.edu>

great, it works, thanks a lot.


At 11:18 AM 6/22/2008 -0400, Godmar Back wrote:

>Fixed --- the update should propagate automatically within the next 24 
>hours. If you'd like to test right away, choose LibX Preferences -> Cue 
>Options -> Update Cues.
>
>NB: there's a bug in the update mechanism that prevents cue updates from 
>being effective in the current browser window.  You need to open a new 
>browser window (Ctrl-N) for the updated cue to be effective. Tobias is 
>fixing this bug right now.
>
>  - Godmar
>
>On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Victoria Lin 
><<mailto:weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu>weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>Hi, I was testing the new LibX 1.5 with both Firefox 2 and Firefox 3. I
>>notice one problem with the embedded cues in "Global Books in Print". In
>>our current edition built in this April, on the search results page, click
>>on Harvard icon, it goes to our catalog. But with the new version both in
>>Firefox 2 and 3, when click on the Harvard icon (though when mouseover the
>>icon, it shows the url of our catalog) it goes to the book record of Global
>>Books in Print, have to click on ISBN to go to our catalog. Is Global Books
>>in Print still supposed?
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>>
>>_________________________________
>>
>>Victoria Lin
>>phone: 617-495-3724
>>email: <mailto:weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu>weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu
>>
>>Harvard University Library
>>Office for Information Systems
>>90 Mt. Auburn Street
>>Cambridge, MA. 02138
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Libx mailing list
>><mailto:Libx at mozdev.org>Libx at mozdev.org
>>https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/libx

_________________________________

Victoria Lin
phone: 617-495-3724
email: weilin at hulmail.harvard.edu

Harvard University Library
Office for Information Systems
90 Mt. Auburn Street
Cambridge, MA. 02138
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/libx/attachments/20080623/90233af7/attachment.html 

From jbickar at stanford.edu  Mon Jun 23 10:06:36 2008
From: jbickar at stanford.edu (John Bickar)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:06:36 -0700
Subject: [LibX] PMID: 3966281 ?
Message-ID: <485FD81C.1050407@stanford.edu>

Someone on the LibX Team has a sense of humor...

Great work on the latest version of LibX. I'm just getting a chance to 
test it with FF3 and things look good so far.

Keep up the good work!

-John Bickar

-- 

John Bickar, Ed.M.
User Services Technology Specialist
Cubberley Education Library
Stanford University
http://cubberley.stanford.edu
johnbickar at stanford.edu
650.725.1131 (office)
650.796.4637 (mobile)