March 9, 2016 Meeting of Library Assessment Committee

Time and Location of Meeting

March 9, 20169:00 am - 10:30 am Main Library Room 308

Agenda Details


  1. Review agenda.
  1. Desk Tracker vs. new public services assessment tool
  • For the meeting, Jen prepared a handout that displayed a comparison chart for Desk Tracker and other similar products so the costs and benefits could be more accurately assessed by the committee. The library currently has a subscription to Desk Tracker which costs approximately $2000/year and is paid for by the IT department. However, this current contract ends in June 2016. The Desk Tracker sales team in Denver is willing to do a virtual demo of Desk Tracker Plus and Desk Tracker Life for committee members to investigate these options. Currently, the committee needs to consider its needs and priorities with regard to assessment tools, as well as look at who else uses Desk Tracker. Since Desk Tracker is weak at data visualization, the committee should seek a solution with better options. (See Jen’s list for ideas.) The library currently has minimal access to LibAnalytics, which may offer a good solution. The committee is going to demo some different products to see what the best solution is, and whether we should renew our contract with Desk Tracker in the summer.
  1. Ithaka Graduate Student Survey update (Lisa Hinchliffe)
    – The survey is set to begin on March 16. It will be emailed to 90% of the students of the grad college, the college of law, and the college of veterinary medicine. With the help of the Ithaka staff, some survey questions were customized to UIUC such as the drop-down menus for degrees, programs of study, and library spaces. (This list was taken from the recent LibQual survey, but added the Oak Street location as it now has an open reading room.) The survey will result in an identified data set, but the data will be de-identified for most purposes. The survey is fully approved by the IRB and Student Affairs. There will be an IRB amendment available to those who wish to use the de-identified data, but they will need their IRB Citi training to be up to date. (The aggregated data, however, will not have this requirement.) The survey is not being incentivized in any way, as these incentives have not worked in the past.
  1. Request for Advice – Content Audit Rubric, Suzanne
  • Suzanne is working on improving the library’s web page, and is currently assessing the over 16,000 pages of library website content in CMS to improve the content and its quality. At today’s meeting she presented an audit rubric she has developed to assess the web pages individually, and groups of web pages. Her current rubric is in the form of a spreadsheet in which staff can rank web pages on a scale of 1 to 5 in different categories and criteria to develop an average score for the page, which will help determine how much attention it needs. Suzanne has used SSHEL web pages as a starting practice point, as much of this web information is already redundant and allows for a good sample size of all library web pages’ content. The next step is to have more library staff try demo the rubric on other different web pages and CMS items to pilot this web assessment and help prepare for total website overhaul/makeover.

Minutes Details


Jen-Chien Yu, Jason Strutz, Jameatris Rimkus, Cindy Ingold, Erin Kerby, Lynn Wiley, Suzanne Chapman, Susan Avery, Susan Braxton, Becky Smith, Kirsten Feist

Guest speaker:
Lisa Hinchliffe