All in all, keeping in mind that I haven’t actually used any of these from the librarian’s side, I would say that my top two favourites are the Libraryh3lp widget and the Qwidget. Both offer advanced functionality on the library end of things (running multiple chats at once, transcripts, statistics, etc.) and are super easy to use for the library patron. As a future librarian, this is something in which I now feel well-versed, and it’s something I’ll be able to bring to the table if I work in a library that is considering adding chat reference to its slate of VR services … if any of these options still exist by then!

Other chat formats that might be worth looking into for those who are really interested include the Spark IM Client, Live Help Messenger, Userplane, Skype, InstantService, or any of those listed in the “10 Chat Widgets to Consider” link on the right-hand column of this blog.

Institutions such as the LMU Hannon Library can purchase this system for use in their libraries, and based on the FAQ for the service at LMU, it appears that in addition to the Tutor.com librarians, some of the university’s own librarians (and those throughout the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities) also put hours into the service.

Here is a screenshot of the “Get Help” page on the Hannon Library’s website. I find it very interesting that the library also uses a Libraryh3lp widget – in this image you can see that the chat box disappears when no librarian is available (I previously called this a “lucky” find, but I guess going online at 7:30 on a Sunday morning is all you need). This chat widget links to LMU librarians specifically, and patrons can use the 24/7 Tutor.com Virtual Reference when none are available.

Like some of the previous chat interfaces, this one requires that the patron fill out a little form before connecting, identifying his or her home library, name, type of student (grad, undergrad), and question. This does bring up privacy issues, but when I attempted to connect, I was able to leave the name field blank.

Once clicking to connect, I assume that chat usually begins fairly quickly. I, however, waited for a number of minutes before giving up, as I was not connected with a librarian within a window of time that I would consider to be convenient. Again, the 7:30 on a Sunday morning might have something to do with that – maybe only one librarian was staffing the system – but it didn’t feel very convenient to me.

I imagine that the chat works pretty much the same way that LivePerson or QuestionPoint 24/7 do, once you’re connected. Like these programs, Tutor.com also tracks and monitors usage, keeps statistics, and can pull transcripts. This makes it very useful on the librarian’s end. My only worry is that individual libraries might not be able to access this information very easily – do they have to go to Tutor.com to find anything out? Do they have unlimited access to the reports and transcripts so that they can evaluate how well Tutor.com’s elusive librarians are serving their patrons? They probably do, but it’s a question I would have as a librarian looking to implement the service.

From the user’s perspective, the chat is fairly easy to access. Although the VR link on the library’s homepage is written in fairly small font, once you find it, the chat is only one click away. I actually really love that the library also has a Libraryh3lp widget, because I’ve come to the conclusion that widgets are way easier from the user’s perspective, and I like the idea that the library wants to serve its users on an internal basis, referring them to external librarians only when this is impossible. I do feel unsure, however, about the speed of the Tutor.com chat and how that affects the number of patrons that actually use it.

I also can’t help but wonder what kind of people work for Tutor.com as librarians. I mean, the site is loaded with references to “tutors,” so that’s clearly their largest staff base. There is even a link for how to become a tutor. However, there is no such option for how to become a Tutor.com librarian, and there are no staff profiles or other indications of who exactly is running the show. Are they really professional librarians? The website claims they are, but as a librarian scoping out programs to work with, I’d want a little more info about this for sure.

Various libraries have establishments in the Second Life world, including McMaster, McGill, Mount St. Vincent, and Saint Leo University Library.

Second Life

It is not possible to take screenshots of one’s own avatar in Second Life (at least not that I’ve found), but I have included a shot of the World Map search page through which I searched “university library.” I set up an account and teleported around the Second Life world, checking out various information desks. In some cases, they weren’t desks but little information stations, marked by globes or little i’s in circles. I was searching on the weekend, so maybe this is why, but I was not able to find a single librarian with which to chat. Come to think of it, I barely saw ANYBODY else – maybe I was doing something wrong?

So basically, I can’t really critique how well the chat worked, because I didn’t use it! Chatting itself is very easy in Second Life – there is a text field at the bottom of your screen, and you simply type text into that. Some of the information desks identified who was normally stationed there and offered the option to leave a message.

The best experience I had was at the McGill Library, which had an information station that linked directly to the library’s QuestionPoint chat (this involved opening another window and browsing to the library website). Other than that, I wasn’t able to connect with anyone.

For this reason, I would say that trying to get reference help through Second Life chat would NOT be the best option unless you could find a library that was reasonably well-staffed (or even well-used) at all times. However, if virtual worlds such as Second Life were to become more populated or popular, then I could see a place for this in the future. It kind of goes without saying that you wouldn’t really ever go this route unless you already had Second Life downloaded on to your computer and were a dedicated user.

Interestingly, I visited the websites for each of the four libraries mentioned above, and none of them mentioned anywhere on their “Ask Us” pages that they were available for help in Second Life. It is fully possible that these libraries created accounts a long time ago and have now let them fall into disuse, or that they simply do not spend enough time logged in to warrant advertising it. Either way, I kind of wonder why they would even bother having Second Life information desks if they weren’t going to share this with the university community?

I think that this could be a very useful (and fairly easy) addition to the roster of VR services offered to library patrons if librarians had the time and resources to dedicate to staffing the virtual information desks, if Second Life were more popular, and if the service were advertised well. That’s a lot of ifs.

The Baylor University Library uses Libraryh3lp for its online chat reference service. It offers several widgets – for example, the library homepage has a small widget box, while the “Ask a Librarian” page uses a much larger version. This larger widget is shown in the image below.

The odd thing about the Libraryh3lp widget is that some libraries choose to set it so that when no librarians are available to answer questions, the widget box actually disappears entirely.  I personally have seen this on the Santa Barbara City College Luria Library website – the main text of the page says, “Use the box to the left of this screen to talk with a librarian,” but no box actually appears. If you’re lucky you just might catch this. Another library that uses Libraryh3lp is the American University Library in Washington, DC.

This particular widget has a few advantages for the user over MeeboMe and WIMZI – it has three icons that may be used for the following: 1) to send a file to the librarian, 2) to email a chat transcript to yourself, and 3) to open the chat in a new window. This last feature is particularly useful, as I was thinking that with the other widgets, you’d totally lose your chat if you accidentally closed the window or navigated away from it. Opening a whole new window might help keep things organized once you actually start navigating around based on the librarian’s suggestions.

The Libraryh3lp widget also possesses more functionality than MeeboMe or WIMZI on the librarian’s side of things. Because it saves transcripts, provides statistics, and can be managed by several librarians simultaneously, it would be more useful for both from a service standpoint and from a “proving we’re being used by the community” standpoint than some of the other widget options.

The button that allows users to send files to the librarian is also very handy, particularly for an academic library setting – librarians may want to see students’ assignment sheets in order to provide them with the best possible research recommendations.

As with the other widgets, Libraryh3lp widgets are extremely easy to find from the libraries’ homepages (especially in the case of Baylor), and a first-time user would have no problem accessing them. My only issue is that it’s not quite as aesthetically appealing – the sharp lines and the enforced use of Courier New as the chat font make it a little less enjoyable for me as a user. However, I’d say that the Libraryh3lp widget ranks with Qwidget as the top 2 chat widgets I’ve looked at so far.

A group of Ontario libraries use LivePerson chat software, incorporated right into their libraries’ websites, to provide online research help to patrons. Their program, askON, includes public and academic libraries throughout Ontario, including the Cambridge Libraries & Galleries. Like BC’s AskAway, askON is staffed by professionals from all of the member libraries, so users may not end up chatting with librarians from their local libraries in every instance.

As demonstrated in the screenshot above, taken from the homepage of the Cambridge Libraries & Galleries, there is a prominently-placed direct link to the askON service from the first page a user would see when visiting the library online. When clicked, this link opens a new window and begins with a set of fields that the user is expected to fill out before being connected to a librarian. Questions asked include “What is your first name?” – “Which public library do you use?” – “Tell us a bit about who you are” – and “What is your question?”

For the library user, this is immediately different from all of the widgets discussed so far in its lack of anonymity. It is even different from the MSN Messenger, which necessarily involves the librarian seeing the user’s email address or login name. QuestionPoint 24/7 is the most similar to LivePerson in its request for user information.

However, LivePerson is relatively quick and is also attractively laid out. As a user, I would definitely prefer LivePerson to QuestionPoint. I suppose the only downside to LivePerson (and to askON specifically) is that unlike QuestionPoint, it does not have 24/7 access to reference chat for users. Its member group is smaller, for one thing – Ontario versus all of the States – so its librarians are all relatively local. When the chat is offline, the popup window allows users to send emails directly to askON.

Although I would prefer LivePerson chat to QuestionPoint 24/7 chat (at least in the New York Public Library version) if I had to choose a chat system based on software, I have to say that as a user, I still think I’d rather use  a widget, particularly Qwidget, such as employed by BC’s AskAway program.

This widget is very similar to Qwidget and MeeboMe. A refrain that I’ve had throughout these posts is that these widgets are aesthetically pleasing or “pretty” – I think the rounded graphics and sans-serif fonts contribute to that.

It appears as though the owner of the widget must have, and be signed into, an AIM account, which  means there’s an extra level of sign-in for the library itself. However, as with the other widgets, the library’s users do not need to have AIM accounts as well – they can just chat with the AIM user through the website. A blogger at the Tek Blog claims that WIMZI is just a rip-off of MeeboMe, but without the annoying need to sign in to meebo.com. I suppose for Americans who already use AOL, this would be an advantage. However, for those of us (especially Canadians) who have neither used nor care about AOL, it seems like pretty much the same thing – you either sign into AIM or meebo.com; it doesn’t really matter which.

Blogger Wayne Schulz compares WIMZI to other free web-based chat widgets such as Google Talk Chatback and makes the worthy point that WIMZI works not only from desktop computers, but also from mobile devices such as iPhones when signed on to AIM. For this reason, WIMZI could be a better tool for roving librarians or m-libraries specifically.

As a user of Princeton University Library’s chat reference services, I would be way more likely to use its WIMZI widget than to use any of its other messaging options (see previous post for details). I suppose that again, like MeeboMe, its lack of archiving capabilities would still make it less useful than Qwidget. However, being free is a big bonus for the library itself.

Overall, this widget is easy to use (as it functions pretty much the same as Qwidget and MeeboMe, at least from the user’s perspective), is only one click away from the library’s homepage (there is a “Chat” button right next to “Ask a Librarian” on the homepage), and is a strong complement to the other messaging options offered by the library. In comparison to Princeton’s other chat reference options, it’s totally the victor.

However, because the MSN Messenger information is located directly next to a MeeboMe widget (shown in the picture to the right), as a user of this library I would most likely opt for the widget to chat with a librarian – especially if I were on a public computer that did not have MSN Messenger installed. If I were using my laptop, were actually still a user of Messenger (which I stopped being in about 2006),  really loved using chat reference, and wanted to be able to contact librarians on a relatively frequent basis, I would definitely go to the trouble of adding the library to my contact list and using the service.

I may also use the service if I were undertaking some serious research in a specific discipline and wanted to add the librarian for my subject area to Messenger.  This would, of course, depend on the librarian being committed to instant messaging with MSN and being logged on quite regularly.

As a first-time user of instant messaging reference service at Carleton University Library, I would not be likely to use MSN Messenger. The download process would be too cumbersome, and with the MeeboMe widget right there, why bother? However, if I were at a library where Messenger were the only option, I might consider it.

Honestly though, I just think that Messenger’s day in the sun is over. Much like ICQ and AIM, which for some odd reason Princeton University Library still uses (at least in theory – who knows if they actively sign on daily), it’s just not as convenient, pretty, or socially relevant as widgets such as MeeboMe and Qwidget. If they do follow through on being constantly logged on, however, I suppose it’s still worthwhile offering the option to patrons.

I think I’d have pretty much the same response to any of the messaging clients that require download and sign-on: MSN, Yahoo!, Google, etc.

Like Qwidget, the MeeboMe widget is attractive, unobtrusive, and simple to use. It is easily accessible – users click on “Ask a Question / Tell Us” from the library homepage and are taken directly to the widget. Like the Qwidget, it is also incredibly accessible to first-time users; it requires no downloads and can be used directly on the library page without navigating to external windows or websites. From the user’s perspective, MeeboMe and Qwidget seem to be equally valuable.

The MeeboMe widget used at the Edmonton Public Library is supported by additional links throughout the library’s website (as pictured on this page) which users can click on to access the chat widget in a separate window. This would be handy for users who want to chat with a librarian and still navigate throughout the EPL website on one browser tab.

As a user, I would be very motivated to use the MeeboMe widget to chat with librarians. As a librarian, however, there would be some downsides. Unlike QuestionPoint 24/7 and the Qwidget, MeeboMe is freely available online. Libraries do not have to pay to use it, which is excellent from a budgetary standpoint. This means, though, that its systems for tracking usage are not quite as sophisticated. There is also no option to save or export transcripts, so users or librarians would need to copy and paste chat discussions in order to save them. A library would have to decide how important these features were to them versus how important it would be to have a free chat option – at least while they try it out.

Overall, the MeeboMe widget is fast, attractive, and versatile (as you can access it from your regular web browser or in a pop-up window). As a user of EPL or any other library that had this widget on its website, I would definitely make use of this tool. It is a strong addition to the usual lineup of in-person, email or telephone reference options.

An example of a placement of the Qwidget at VPL is here, and an example of its placement at UBC is here.

The Qwidget does appear, however, in multiple places on both websites. It is therefore very easy to locate; users can navigate through “Ask a Librarian” links or find it placed on various pages, such as the Indexes and Databases page at UBC Library as linked above and shown below, where additional help might be required.

The Qwidget is extremely easy to use. The user need not log in or even provide a name. An email address may be entered if a transcript is desired, but if not, the user may type his or her question directly into the chat box and press “Send.” The question is sent immediately, with no observable lag time, and responses are equally as quick – at least from a technological point of view.

Of course, the real success of the tool depends on the librarians who use it and their ability to provide high-quality, timely reference services. Instant messaging is a useful alternative to in-person, telephone, email, or form-based web reference services, which both VPL and UBC also provide. Librarians’ reference interview skills must be translated across media in order for chat to work; the Qwidget itself is extremely accessible, but the service it mediates must be as well. This will be a running theme throughout my evaluations of different instant messaging tools.

One critique I do have of Qwidget is its size – while its smallness makes it easy to incorporate unobtrusively into most webpages, the chat box is quite small, and if a librarian types quickly or sends long messages, the user is required to scroll back to read them. Increasing the size of the widget slightly may help.

In addition, I believe that it would increase accountability and trust between users and librarians if it were stated up front that the participating librarians come from a variety of British Columbia libraries. After the first time I used AskAway and discovered that the librarian may not actually have been at the library in question, I felt somewhat deceived even though I did not feel uncomfortable about her information seeking expertise, as I did when I used QuestionPoint through NYPL.

Overall, the Qwidget is a great tool for libraries such as VPL and UBC. It is accessible, fast, features an aesthetically pleasing design, and is offered as a convenient option to the libraries’ arrays of other reference services. A few small changes might make it even more usable and valuable. However, it is a strong improvement on the normal QuestionPoint 24/7 software, at least from the user’s point of view. I would definitely use the chat services at these libraries on the strength of the Qwidget alone.

For its chat services, the library uses a program called QuestionPoint 24/7, which is the OCLC’s reference management software. Librarians that use this program form a collective and spend an allotted number of hours per week answering questions from all co-operating libraries. The number of hours required per library is dependent upon the size of the population it serves (for public libraries) or its FTE (academic libraries).

As a user, the chat may be accessed easily from the library’s homepage – under “Services,” “Ask NYPL” is the first clickable option. Once clicked, a list of reference services appears, and as shown in this screenshot, the chat link is prominently located at the midway point in the list.

Once the user clicks on “Chat with Us,” he or she must input a name and optional email address before continuing. As a user of this service, I felt a little bit odd about putting in a name due to privacy issues, but nothing would have stopped me from inputting a fake or screen name.

After supplying this information, the user is connected to the chat. While this connection is fairly quick and a librarian generally becomes available right away, the load time of the software itself is quite slow. In addition, it only works with some web browsers (Firefox and IE work, for example, but Opera is one that does not).

As for the chatting itself, the librarians are friendly and helpful, but part of my frustration (besides the slow load time) was that there are no clues as to whether the librarian is typing anything. A little script at the bottom of the page (as in MSN Messenger) to show whether the librarian is typing would be a good addition to this service, as at times it can feel like nothing is happening and you’re just asking questions into a black hole. Another thing that really makes me feel sketchy is that it’s not made transparent from the outset that you’re not necessarily speaking to an NYPL librarian. I don’t know why (it’s not like various librarians can’t all answer the same research question), but this feels kind of dirty to me. As a user, I want to feel somewhat knowledgeable, like I’m in control of my information needs. Finding out after the fact that you weren’t speaking to a NYPL librarian just makes you feel tricked – or at least it did for me.

Interestingly, NYPL offers the QuestionPoint service to its users in English and also in Spanish. I find it fascinating to see how different the Spanish version is in terms of information divulged and requested.  For example, the Spanish version makes it clear that you will be speaking to a librarian that’s not necessarily from NYPL. It also asks for a lot of sign-in information, which I found odd, but perhaps they do this for usage statistics?  The system requests your name, your email, postal/zip code, state, type of internet connection, and whether your computer has a firewall program. How is all of this information necessary? The Spanish version also offers both research help and information about the user’s local library, but indicates that the online session will last for 15 minutes. Is this a limit? Or just a guideline? Anyway, it’s very cool that NYPL offers the service in both languages, but I find it difficult to understand why the differences exist between the two.

Although I don’t think the chat is as good as it could be from a user’s perspective, it does have several strong features for librarians. It tracks usage, stores transcripts, allows librarians to mark interactions for followup, and promotes collaboration within the library community. As a librarian, I suspect that I would be satisfied with QuestionPoint as a chat system.

As a user of NYPL, I would definitely use the chat, especially if I didn’t know that anything better existed. However, something better does exist… see my next post for details!