Information Services Advisory Group
Responses to Search Interface
Galileo
This summary is based on four full reviews, and additional comments which were
submitted by electronic mail. It can be adapted and revised to incorporate
additional responses, as needed.
General trends in evaluations of Galileo
- Generally, members found navigation easy in Galileo, but several members
thought the visual presentation could be improved in terms of color scheme,
button arrangement, etc.
- Opinions about the search engine were not conclusive, with several member
indicating general satisfaction, but with reservations about clarity and
flexibility of search types.
- Comments were generally favorable about capture and display of results,
but with complaints about the Marking feature.
ISAG members’ overall comparison of Galileo interface to WebSPIRS interface:
| Preferred Galileo: | 1 |
| Preferred WebSPIRS/Silver Platter: | 0 |
| No clear preference indicated: | 3 |
Appearance of Interface
Positive comments:
- Some found the appearance clear, or at least not confusing or distracting.
Critical comments:
- Several reviewers found button arrangement distracting in some sense--e.g.,
"somewhat confusing," "a bit busy, but not bad."
- Appearance would be improved if the dark gray color were changed to a lighter
background.
Additional individual comments:
- A simple alphabetical list of databases would be better than the table provided.
- One reviewer liked the option of databases arrange alphabetically or by topic.
- The appearance was "cluttered" and "rather amateurish looking."
- Buttons were too large and made the screen appear crowded.
Navigation
Positive comments:
- Generally, reviewers described navigating in Galileo "easy" with
few problems moving from screen to screen.
- Generally positive comments on the purpose and utility of navigation buttons.
Critical comments:
- Marking feature [see Display and Capture section below]
Individual comments:
- One reviewer liked the placement of navigation buttons, providing the
user with multiple options at the top and bottom of many screens.
- One reviewer thought the meaning of the "Results" button was unclear.
Search Engine
Positive comments:
- Reviewers were generally comfortable with search engine, but language
used suggests that nobody was particularly impressed, e.g., "pretty
standard," "fine," "worked well enough."
- Author and Title searches worked well.
Critical comments:
- At least two reviewers thought the "Subject" search option was
needlessly confusing (though the screen did indicate which fields
were to be searched in a "Subject" search).
- Some reviewers wanted greater flexibility to run, e.g., a keyword/author
search; but another reviewer noted that this could be accomplished using limits.
Individual comments:
- "AND, OR and NESTING appear to work properly."
- One reviewer noted the ability "to work through a number of different
search combinations and limit types successfully and quickly."
Display and Capture of Results
Positive comments:
- Several reviewers found the display of results as clear, neat and/or legible.
- Display of full text of articles (when available) also was clear.
Critical comments:
- Nobody was happy with the Mark records feature. Multiple reviewers commented:
that clicking the mouse to mark a record does not result in a visual indication
that the record is marked; that the results screen must reload each time a record
is marked or unmarked; that generally easy navigation in Galileo was marred by the
Marking feature, which was slow, confusing and/or annoying.
Individual comments:
- The search results display was neat and legible.
- One reviewer liked the display both of citations (results) and of full records.
- Help text explained how to e-mail results, which worked well.
Review prepared and respectfully submitted by David Bachman, April 28, 1997
Back