I am all for everyone having access to libraries and all of our services. The reason that software doesn’t matter is because our services are choked with traffic as it is. If you can get any population to use it’s library virtual reference service one tenth as much as it uses telephone or in-person reference, you’ll see the same thing. We can hardly handle the traffic from people who do meet the software requirements.

Needing a scalable model is a much bigger problem than software.

If software mattered, then why would so many people be touting commercial IM products, when only a third of people going online use them? Don’t more people use web browsers than use IM? What about all the people who don’t IM, how will we ever hear from them?

We need to give up the idea that “virtual reference” software and “instant messaging” software are different. VR is just a cheap knock-off of IM, with some extra features that could probably stand to be abandoned.

So yes, there are technical problems, but the right way to address that is to start with ADA compliance. I can’t believe we’re even talking about Service Pack 2.

I was dissapointed with your article because it took a broad swipe, which as you said, needed to be done, but left out the part where you paint a better picture of what things should look like.

Again, software doesn’t matter. What matters is people, online, talking to other people. Libraries should be able to make that happen without squabbling over pop-up blockers, firewalls and service pack 2.

I am all for everyone having access to libraries and all of our services. The reason that software doesn’t matter is because our services are choked with traffic as it is. If you can get any population to use it’s library virtual reference service one tenth as much as it uses telephone or in-person reference, you’ll see the same thing. We can hardly handle the traffic from people who do meet the software requirements.

Needing a scalable model is a much bigger problem than software.

If software mattered, then why would so many people be touting commercial IM products, when only a third of people going online use them? Don’t more people use web browsers than use IM? What about all the people who don’t IM, how will we ever hear from them?

We need to give up the idea that “virtual reference” software and “instant messaging” software are different. VR is just a cheap knock-off of IM, with some extra features that could probably stand to be abandoned.

So yes, there are technical problems, but the right way to address that is to start with ADA compliance. I can’t believe we’re even talking about Service Pack 2.

I was dissapointed with your article because it took a broad swipe, which as you said, needed to be done, but left out the part where you paint a better picture of what things should look like.

Again, software doesn’t matter. What matters is people, online, talking to other people. Libraries should be able to make that happen without squabbling over pop-up blockers, firewalls and service pack 2.

The article does not state that no users are satisfied with VR, nor does it suggest that VR transactions are always plagued with technical difficulties. That’s not the point of the article, and others have written about user satisfaction (or lack thereof). Yes, many regular VR users appreciate the service, that isn’t being contested. The point of this article is to focus on users who are unable to log in to begin with, who encounter technical problems during a transaction, or who choose not to use the service because they would be required to disable pop-up blockers or use a particular browser, etc. We’ll never know how these users feel about VR, because they don’t get far enough into a VR transaction to make the kinds of positive comments that Peter has posted screen shots of. Shouldn’t we be thinking about these potential users as well, rather than focusing on those who already use and appreciate the service? Shouldn’t we be trying to determine if one software product could help us to improve the experience for all users, not merely the satisfied ones? Perhaps some would fear doing this, as it would reveal that their VR service isn’t as successful and user-friendly as they like to claim?

Incidentally, this is not the only article to report on user dissatisfaction. A few articles are cited in this piece, but there are many others out there. Many who have suggested that VR isn’t all it was originally thought to be (i.e. Coffman and Arret) have been sharply criticized by VR proponents (who seem to be a very sensitive bunch). I would suggest that Peter take a look at the literature on VR to develop a better understanding of what is going on beyond QandANJ. I realize that QandANJ is one of the successful VR services, and those who manage the service should be commended. Unfortunately, by dismissing anyone who dares to criticize VR as a service, we are in fact ignoring many users. Posting a few screen shots of positive user feedback into a blog proves nothing more than the fact that some users (those who can get in) appreciate the service. That’s great. However, as stated before, the idea that some users like VR was never contested. Unfortunately, many libraries and their users are not having such a great experience with VR, and many libraries are in fact closing down their VR service or moving towards more user-friendly IM software.

Perhaps if Peter had taken the time to consider some of the issues discussed in this article before jumping on that user-centric high horse, he would have come away with a better understanding of what is happening beyond QandANJ.

The article does not state that no users are satisfied with VR, nor does it suggest that VR transactions are always plagued with technical difficulties. That’s not the point of the article, and others have written about user satisfaction (or lack thereof). Yes, many regular VR users appreciate the service, that isn’t being contested. The point of this article is to focus on users who are unable to log in to begin with, who encounter technical problems during a transaction, or who choose not to use the service because they would be required to disable pop-up blockers or use a particular browser, etc. We’ll never know how these users feel about VR, because they don’t get far enough into a VR transaction to make the kinds of positive comments that Peter has posted screen shots of. Shouldn’t we be thinking about these potential users as well, rather than focusing on those who already use and appreciate the service? Shouldn’t we be trying to determine if one software product could help us to improve the experience for all users, not merely the satisfied ones? Perhaps some would fear doing this, as it would reveal that their VR service isn’t as successful and user-friendly as they like to claim?

Incidentally, this is not the only article to report on user dissatisfaction. A few articles are cited in this piece, but there are many others out there. Many who have suggested that VR isn’t all it was originally thought to be (i.e. Coffman and Arret) have been sharply criticized by VR proponents (who seem to be a very sensitive bunch). I would suggest that Peter take a look at the literature on VR to develop a better understanding of what is going on beyond QandANJ. I realize that QandANJ is one of the successful VR services, and those who manage the service should be commended. Unfortunately, by dismissing anyone who dares to criticize VR as a service, we are in fact ignoring many users. Posting a few screen shots of positive user feedback into a blog proves nothing more than the fact that some users (those who can get in) appreciate the service. That’s great. However, as stated before, the idea that some users like VR was never contested. Unfortunately, many libraries and their users are not having such a great experience with VR, and many libraries are in fact closing down their VR service or moving towards more user-friendly IM software.

Perhaps if Peter had taken the time to consider some of the issues discussed in this article before jumping on that user-centric high horse, he would have come away with a better understanding of what is happening beyond QandANJ.

The software is difficult and the interface cumberson even with recent improvements and upgrades. YET we still have lots and lots of VR customers who choose to log on to ask their questions when in reality it can often be answered by a relatively simplistic search on any freely avaible search engine.

At first this puzzled me, but I have come to the conclusion that they choose VR over a search engine because either they want assurance that they have found the best/right information or even if they know how to search they do not know how to select the correct result from the list to get the information they need.

Knowing how to plug a few keywords in to a search engine or database does not mean that a person is information literate or able to interpret the results of the search. That, I think, is one of the key services provided by VR (and indeed most reference transactions no matter what method they may occur).

The software is difficult and the interface cumberson even with recent improvements and upgrades. YET we still have lots and lots of VR customers who choose to log on to ask their questions when in reality it can often be answered by a relatively simplistic search on any freely avaible search engine.

At first this puzzled me, but I have come to the conclusion that they choose VR over a search engine because either they want assurance that they have found the best/right information or even if they know how to search they do not know how to select the correct result from the list to get the information they need.

Knowing how to plug a few keywords in to a search engine or database does not mean that a person is information literate or able to interpret the results of the search. That, I think, is one of the key services provided by VR (and indeed most reference transactions no matter what method they may occur).