Migrating to LibGuides 2.0Posted: September 30, 2014 | Author: Margaret Heller and Will Kent | Filed under: design, library instruction, tools | Tags: collaboration, libguides, planning | Comments Off on Migrating to LibGuides 2.0
This summer Springshare released LibGuides 2.0, which is a complete revamp of the LibGuides system. Many libraries use LibGuides, either as course/research guides or in some cases as the entire library website, and so this is something that’s been on the mind of many librarians this summer, whichever side of LibGuides they usually see. The process of migrating is not too difficult, but the choices you make in planning the new interface can be challenging. As the librarians responsible for the migration, we will discuss our experience of planning and implementing the new LibGuides platform.
Making the Decision to Migrate
While migrating this summer was optional, Springshare will probably only support LibGuides 1 for another two years, and at Loyola we felt it was better to move sooner rather than later. Over the past few years there were perpetual LibGuides cleanup projects, and this seemed to be a good opportunity to finalize that work. At the same time, we wanted to experiment with new designs for the library’s website that would bring it in closer alignment with the university’s new brand as well as make the site responsive, and LibGuides seemed like the ideal place to experiment with some of those ideas. Several new features, revealed on Springshare’s blog, resonated with subject-area specialists which was another reason to push for a migration sooner than later. We also wanted to have it in place before the first day of classes, which gave us a few months to experiment.
The Reference and Electronic Resources librarian, Will Kent, as well as the Head of Reference, Niamh McGuigan, and the Digital Services Librarian, Margaret Heller, worked in concert to make decisions, as well as inviting all the other reference and instruction librarians (as well as anyone else who was interested) to participate in the process. There were a few ground rules the core team went by, however: we were migrating and the process was iterative, i.e. we weren’t waiting for perfection to launch.
Planning the Migration
During the migration planning process, the small team of three librarians worked together to create a timeline, report to the library staff on progress, solicit feedback on the system, and update the LibGuide policies to reflect the new changes and functions. As far as front-end migration went, we addressed large staff-wide meetings, provided updates, polled subject specialists on the progress, prepared our 400 databases for conversion to the new A-Z list, and demonstrated new features, and opened changes that they should be aware of. We would relay updates from Springshare and handle any troubleshooting questions as they happened.
Given the new features – new categories, new ways of searching, the A-Z database list, and other features, it was important for us to sit down, discuss standards, and update our content policies. The good news was that most of our content was in good shape for the migration. The process was swift and barring inevitable, tiny bugs went smoothly.
Our original timeline was to present the migration steps at our June monthly joint meeting of collections and reference staff, and give a timeline one month until the July meeting to complete the work. For various reasons this ended up stretching until mid-August, but we still launched the day before classes began. We are constantly in the process of updating guide types, adding new resources, and re-classifying boxes to adhere to our new policies.
Working on the Design
LibGuides 2.0 provides two basic templates, a left navigation menu and a top tabbed menu that looks similar to the original LibGuides (additional templates are available with the LibGuides CMS product). We had originally discussed using the left navigation box template and originally began a design based on this, but ultimately people felt more comfortable with the tabbed navigation.
For the initial prototype, Margaret worked off a template that we’d used before for Omeka. This mirrors the Loyola University Chicago template very closely. We kept all of the LibGuides standard template–i.e. 1-3 columns with the number of columns and sections within the column determined by the page creator, but added a few additional pieces in the header and footer, as well as making big changes to the tabs.
The first step in planning the design was to understand what customization happened in the template, and which in the header and footer which are entered separately in the admin UI. Margaret sketched out our vision for the site on the whiteboard wall to determine existing selectors and those that would need to be added, as well as get a sense of whether we would need to change the content section at all. In the interests of completing the project in a timely fashion, we determined that the bare minimum of customization to unify the research guides with the rest of the university websites would be the first priority.
For those still planning a redesign, the Code4Lib community has many suggestions on what to consider. The main thing to consider is that LibGuides 2.0 is based on the Bootstrap 3.0 framework, which Michael Schofield recently implored us to use responsibly. Other important considerations are the accessibility of the solution you pick, and use of white space.
The new LibGuides platform is responsive, but we needed to account for several items we added to the interface. We added a search box that would allow users to search the entire university website, as well as several new logos, so Margaret added a few media queries to adjust these features on a phone or tablet, as well as adjust the spacing of the custom footer.
Improving the Design
Our first design was ready to present to the subject librarians a month after the migration process started. It was based on the principle of matching the luc.edu pages closely (example), in which the navigation tabs across the top have unusual cutouts, and section titles are very large. No one was very happy with this result, however, as it made the typical LibGuides layout with multiple sections on a page unusable and the tabs not visible enough. While one approach would have been to change the navigation to left navigation menu and limit the number of sections, the majority of the subject librarians preferred to keep things closer to what they had been, with a view to moving toward a potential new layout in the future.
Once we determined a literal interpretation of the university website was not usable for our content, we found inspiration for the template body from another section of the university website that was aimed at presenting a lot of dynamic content with multiple sections, but kept the standard luc.edu header. This allowed us to create a page that was recognizably part of Loyola, but presented our LibGuides content in a much more usable form.
The other piece we borrowed from the university website was sticky tabs. This was an attempt to make the tabs more visible and usable based on what we knew from usability testing on the old platform and what users would already know from the university site. Because LibGuides is based on the Bootstrap framework, it was easy to drop this in using the Affix plugin (tutorial on how to use this)1. The tabs are translucent so they don’t obscure content as one scrolls down.
Our final result was much more popular with everyone. It has a subtle background color and border around each box with a section header that stands out but doesn’t overwhelm the content. The tabs are not at all like traditional LibGuides tabs, functioning somewhat more like regular header links.
Over the summer we were not able to conduct usability testing on the new interface due to the tight timeline, so the first step this fall is to integrate it into our regular usability testing schedule to make iterative changes based on user feedback. We also need to continue to audit the page to improve accessibility.
The research guides are one of the most used links on our website (anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 visits per month), so our top priority was to make sure the migration did not interfere with use – both in terms of patron access and content creation by the subject-area librarians. Thanks to our feedback sessions, good communication with Springshare, and reliable new platform, the migration went smoothly without interruption.
About our guest author: Will Kent is Reference/Instruction and Electronic Resources Librarian and subject specialist for Nursing and Chemistry at Loyola University Chicago. He received his MSLIS from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 2011 with a certificate in Community Informatics.