National Library of Australia
Kinetica Kinetica
This page is an archive page and will no longer be updated.

Return to Kinetica Homepage
Annual Users' Meeting 2000

Issues from State User Groups

Issues identified by the Victorian Users' Group:
Ergonomic issues
Authorities and Australianisation of headings
The purpose of Kinetica
Use of Kinetica List
Kinetica Expert Advisory Groups
Metadata and digitisation

Issues identified by the South Australian Document Delivery Interest Group

Issues identified by the NSW Kinetica User Group

Issues identified by the Northern Territory Kinetica User Group

Issues identified by the Western Australia Kinetica User Group

Issues identified by the ACT Kinetica User Group


Ergonomic issues (Vic)

Following is a collation of comments received:


I still can't get over how much of the screen is not used - or put another way, how small the various windows - worksheet and indexes are. This must be bad for the eyes. Why isn't the whole screen used?

It takes at least 16 clicks (minimum) to insert a name/title heading in the record - not including the typing of course.


I don't think ECU's concerns are different to anyone else's regarding ergonomic issues. Chiefly we are concerned about :

Client, in priority order :

1) the size of the font/window (eye-strain);

2) excessive mousing to click or scroll, rather than pressing 'enter' or arrow keys at various points. Keyboard shortcuts are not always helpful as there are too many to remember. Prefer tabbing to commands and 'enter' (wrist/arm/shoulder fatigue and pain);

3) inability to change colours of the window displays and highlighting (eye strain).


When using Kinetica web, the login screen requires you to click on the logon button. The option to press Enter or Tab then Enter isn't available. (I believe 'industry standard' for such logon screens is that it can be done from the keyboard, if desired or necessary.)

I mentioned this to NLA way back in the early days of Kinetica and there were much more important things to be fixed then. It's still not hugely important but since it is the first thing you do and especially for new users, if the system irritates from screen one, then it's harder to have happy people.


I have a very important concern with databases, etc which do not allow keys to be used instead of the mouse. I find using the mouse painful on my hands sometimes and would be good if more keys were useable for Kinetica cataloguing etc.


I have a few comments, mostly about the excessive mousing required. I only use Kinetica to look up bib and holding data. I do not use Kinetica Doc Del.

Problem - need to "drill down" through several pages to initiate a search. Solution - put most common options on the first screen, ie: expand the "search in one database" button to six buttons covering all the options ie NBD, CJK etc. This may also be applicable to other functions too.

Problem - after completing a search in say NBD, and then wanting to search the same database again with fresh terms, it requires two screens to get back. ie. search1 button and then select the database again. Solution - an extra button called "new search" that returns you to an empty search screen in the database that you have just been using.

Problem - when selecting a database in the "Select one database" screen, users cannot use the tab key to move between database buttons and hit space bar to select. One must use the mouse. Solution - change the tab order to allow the tab key to be used to select the database. The ability to tab to navigate and spacebar and enter to select should be common to ALL Kinetica web pages. Also, the first few tabs should take you through the common selections in the main part of the screen, rather than the menu items on the top RH side of the screen.

I hope that these comments are of use to you. I really think that we are all going to have RSI problems in the coming decade from all the mousing that we do and we should take any steps that we can take to minimise this.


There are so many boxes to fill out to complete the KDD form that one is clicking and scrolling repeatedly. This requires a lot of fine motor movement of the hand and wrist. It would be good if we could set our own defaults for some of the fields and actually get rid of some eg don't need all the media fields and the default for request is author whereas we always use ISSN, needing articles 80% of the time.


It is very important to be briefed by an Occupational therapist and get your workstation set up either by them or by their rules.

Our work place had this done for all of us and most of us were surprised how much the little adjustments she made helped.


As most people will tell you, there's too much mousing with Document Delivery. The rota is the worst offender. It's too hard to reorder the rota. There's too many fields which aren't used. They could easily be deleted.


I am using Kinetica web, and would like to see more keyboard shortcuts, instead of having to use the mouse for almost everything ie: enter to start search, Tab between all search option boxes instead of just the ones on the same line, etc. thanks and good luck


In one Library a staff member is currently undergoing surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. Although the staff member had slight problems before using the Client, within 6-8 weeks of using the Client the problems became serious. Another staff member has also suffered from intermittent shoulder, wrist and back pain since the move to Kinetica. This is despite using a range of ergonomic measures. The problems relate to the constant need to change from keyboard to mouse and back with Kinetica Client cataloguing. Proposed solution - at least more keyboard shortcuts. This has been mentioned continually over the last 12 months. Future developments for the Cataloguing Client at: future.html don't provide much information on plans to address ergonomic issues. Is there a plan for "ergonomic enhancement" to the Client?

Top


Authorities and Australianisation of headings (Vic)

Where have the Australian headings gone?:
an issues paper on authorities and Australianisation of headings

With the demise of ABN, the Australian library community now lacks both a reliable source of Australian headings, and leadership in the Australianisation of headings. LC is not a reliable source of Australian name headings, and the use of American terms in subject headings is unhelpful to users, and even insulting. Kinetica is not currently taking a leadership role in regards to authorities. Barriers to taking such a role include:

  1. The "Development policy for Australian subject headings" adopted by Kinetica, which seeks to reduce variation of headings from LSCH;
  2. The loss of a coordinating and monitoring body to submit changes such as Australian references, and Australian headings, to LC (this role was once filled by the Subject Headings Review Panel of the ABN Standards Committee and as yet, no replacement body has been established anywhere by the Library community);
  3. An aging, increasingly unreliable file.

The overall picture gained of the Kinetica authority file is disheartening. If current trends continue, the file will shrink in proportion to the bibliographic records it supports, steadily age and become increasingly unreliable:

  1. The LC weekly list is no longer monitored;
  2. Kinetica authorities are in some cases now older than those available from other sources, such as Validator;
  3. Duplicate authority records are appearing more often; it is too easy to create duplicate authority records on Kinetica;
  4. It is a difficult and cumbersome process to carry out authority work in Kinetica;
  5. Problems were created when authorities were migrated from ABN, including the loss of references, and the duplication of the main entry (1xx) as a 4xx;
  6. As yet, there is no facility to upload authority records from users' inhouse files.

Can we resurrect Kinetica as the carrier of an Australian authority file, as much as an Australian NBD? Does it have a role in supplying reliable authorities, and especially Australian authorities, to users? Should it take a more vigorous approach to authorities, and quality issues related to authorities? Should a coordinating body for the submission of Australian headings to LC be reestablished? Should the "Development policy for Australian subject headings" be revoked and replaced by a policy of active Australianisation of headings?

Joan Moncrieff and Clara Ichlov
on behalf of the Victorian Kinetica Users' Group

Top


The purpose of Kinetica (Vic)

What is Kinetica for? Why is it there? What should it be doing?

Potential topics for discussion

  • Whatever happened to the notion of the one-stop shop for bibliographic/holdings, etc. data? The database is rapidly declining in currency and quality.
  • Surely there is money to be made (here and overseas) from having a current, quality, Australia focused bibliographic database, with easy access to other sources of records
  • Duplication of effort with so many major libraries either not contributing at all, or contributing now or in the future through batch uploading infrequently
  • Americanisation of the database
  • Does quality matter?
  • Charging issues - are the wrong people being charged - shouldn't contribution be rewarded and use charged for?
  • Is the recording of Australian bibliographic data and authorities being left to the National Library as the National Library rather than Kinetica?
  • Does Kinetica itself see itself as having a future?
  • Britain seems to have just discovered the notion of a national bibliographic database - we did have one - do we any longer?
  • Is the competition from OCLC too great? Is Kinetica expecting us to find our records elsewhere?

Comments from others

  • Kinetica has defined its core business as resources sharing for Australian libraries and its key challenge is to support resource sharing in an environment where libraries have many choices, for example, records available through the Z39.50 and from library suppliers. Could the National Library please provide a report on the success or otherwise or the resource sharing challenge and perhaps an indication of any issues identified, for example, data loading.
    Sue Clarke, Division Head, Information Resources, University of Melbourne
  • There seems to be a great emphasis on Kinetica as a locational tool or document delivery aid, rather than the cataloguing aspects which had prominence in ABN. ABN became central to the Australian cataloguing community, as a place to find records and create data. It was easy to contribute locational data as part of this process. This central cataloguing role is gone. Kinetica itself appears to expect us to find our records elsewhere, and now we are forced to create records elsewhere, because of the failings of the client. There is no mechanism to enforce standards, or even discuss standards. In such a "deregulated" environment, how can Kinetica expect to survive as a locational tool. To survive, it has to convince library managers that the costs of contributing data are justifiable. What does Kinetica think is its core business? Can it sustain this core business at the cataloguing community fragments? How can it convince the Library community that the cost is worthwhile? Should it rethink its strategies?
    Joan Moncrieff, Cataloguing Librarian, Deakin University
  • A Kinetica learning 'culture' to be instilled through training and information packages of up-do-date, advanced refinements and functions. This to be approached nationally for all levels of library use, inclusive of technical, managerial and library technician staff.
    Lothar Retzlaff (Hollywood Private Hospital Library), Irene Kustra (Agriculture Western Australia)

Top


Use of Kinetica List (Vic)

Role of Kinetica-L

  • Most people at that recent meeting felt that the recent ILL content was an inappropriate use of the list. Thankfully this sort of posting has declined/ceased since Bryony's recent message on the matter.
  • Seems to be used for "official business" only - NLA announcements and User Groups' agendas and minutes. In this it fulfills a role similar to the old ABN daily news. It is possible for it to be used for discussion of the issues that will be raised at the AUM. Perhaps the issues raised at the AUM could be posted afterwards to engender discussion amongst those unable to attend or those unable to make their point at the AUM. Or perhaps the list could be used, in the future, for a forum for pre-AUM discussion of issues, so that a summary could be made at the AUM.
  • Not much really , there is a vague feeling that it could be a more dynamic list.

Margaret Waller
4 August 2000

Top


Kinetica Expert Advisory Groups (Vic)

1. Establishment and Appointment

  • When and how often are EAGs formed?
  • What kind of issues warrant the formation of EAGs?
  • Can users initiate the formation of such EAGs, such as to advice on the authority control work in Kinetica?
  • How can Kinetica users participate - by invitation or nomination?

2. Role

  • Are the recommendations of these groups advisory to the National Library or Kinetica Office only?
  • Will some of these become standards of different functions of the system, eg Cataloguing, Document delivery?

3. Communications

  • What are the effective ways to disseminate information relating to EAGs to the users?

Top


Metadata and digitisation (Vic)

Metadata:

  • Can it be included in Kinetica outside of MARC?
  • Can Kinetica handle Dublin Core records?
  • What is the NLA/Kinetica position/involvement with CORC/OCLC initiatives?

Digitization:

  • Does Kinetica include records for digitized products eg. the Australian Digital Theses project.
  • Does it include records from the NLA etc. for their digitized material?

Top


Issues identified by the South Australian Document Delivery Interest Group

Ergonomic:
Use of gel filled mouse pads recommended by some at meeting.
Connectivity:
Being timed out is still an issue. Some being dropped out after a few minutes. Staff reluctant to ring the KINETICA HELP DESK on every occasion.
What is the purpose of Kinetica:
A useful enhancement would be ability to make requests directly to other suppliers eg. CISTI, BLDSC, Infotrieve etc. if no Australian holdings.
Expert Advisory Group (What is their role):
The Committee felt that the current philosophy was effective ie An issue arrises; call together a group; solve the problem; disband the group. The minutes are on Kinetica-L and members are approachable
Kinetica-L:
Senior management is more likely to see Kinetica-L than Docdlibs-L, hence important DOCDEL documents should go on Kinetrica-L as well. eg minutes of the states KDD user groups.
Is it now over-moderated? We would like to see relevant help desk responses posted on Kinetica-L.
People should be encouraged to use self-explanatory headings so that those obviously not of interest can be discarded immediately.

Top


Issues identified by the NSW Kinetica User Group

At the NSW Kinetica User Group meeting of Friday 18 August 2000, Di Dougall presented the topics and issues being coordinated by Rosemary Dearman of the Victorian User Group to the meeting, (presented above). The meeting supported all of the issues, with some additional comments:

Connectivity
Some NSW libraries concerned about the irregularly slow operation of both the Client and the Web.
What is the purpose of Kinetica? What should it do?
Bronwyn Lee endorsed a review of the goals/aims of Kinetica.
Use of the Kinetica list (how should it best be used?)
NSW would like to know about the possibility of separating Kinetica-L into sublists for KDD vs cataloguing interests.
New issue = Charging system
NSW would like information on the budget and financial viability of Kinetica vis a vis the adequacy of the current charges.

Top


Issues identified by the NT Kinetica User Group

Items considered important

  • Maintaining the quality of the database
  • Maintaining the high standard of cataloguing
  • Use of KDD List for Document Delivery items ? not general list
  • Use of KTA list for training issues to be promoted.
  • Role of the Expert Advisory Group
  • Need for NBD and resource sharing facility a priority
  • Ongoing problem of speed of connection particularly during peak period. Benchmark tests are not testing what is important. Actual time of signing in, time taken to scroll up and down indexes,
    Time taken to return to indexes
    True test would be more reliable if any isbn /subject heading/

Top


Issues identified by the WA Kinetica Users' Group

Three items were raised at the WA Kinetica Users' Group Meeting of 24 July 2000 to be taken to the Kinetica AUM:

  • To further develop keyword and subject searching within Kinetica Document Delivery and improve integration between Kinetica Web and Kinetica Document Delivery so movement between the modules is possible and information retrieved in one may be used in the other without separate logons.
    Moved by Emma Dawson (Ministry of Premier & Cabinet), Seconded by Avenel Hicks (ECU). Motion passed by show of hands.
  • A Kinetica learning 'culture' to be instilled through training and information packages of up-do-date, advanced refinements and functions. This to be approached nationally for all levels of library use, inclusive of technical, managerial and library technician staff.
    Moved by Lothar Retzlaff (Hollywood Private Hospital Library), Seconded by Irene Kustra (Agriculture Western Australia). Motion passed by show of hands.
  • To establish a mechanism to promote the maintenance of authorities and the Australianisation of headings.
    Moved by Kathy Rawlinson (LISWA), Seconded by Joanne Lockwood (Central TAFE Perth Campus). Motion passed by show of hands.

Top


Issues identified by the ACT Kinetica Users' Group

The following are ranked according to the number if institutions represented at our 19th July Meeting who rated the issue as major.

1. How soon will there be a better web search interface for expert Reference Librarians, including, for example, tailored bibliographies, more standard searching features and ability to view authorities? (Sherrey Quinn willing to speak)

2. The two unlinked search systems of KDD and Kinetica web give different search results, so the user pays twice to get a definitive result. (Sue Beatty)

3. Response time.

4. Guidelines may be needed to remind cataloguers how to behave in a networked environment. For example, correct data in Kinetica records should not be altered. Record review is needed to avoid basic errors in records which in turn cause retrieval failure.

5. Smaller institutions appreciate the National Library acting in a consortia role with services such as British Library Inside. Are any other such arrangements planned, with INFORMIT for example?

6. Simpler search screens are needed in Kinetica web (recent changes to Kinetica web may have improved these?)

7. Better procedures are needed for importing records from RLIN, including handling diacritics. At present it is quicker to rekey them. (Christine Fulton)

8. How is the role of the former Subject Headings Review Panel being filled?

Top


Draft agenda Kinetica Annual Users' Meeting 2000