Posts

Posted on

How I learned to stop worrying and love Tripod

Blog post author, Nathanael Brown, ’25, is from Blanchard Township, Maine. He’s an Honors History major and Honors German Studies minor. In addition to his many college commitments, he has enjoyed fencing with Swarthmore’s club team, participating on the mock trial team, and working in the Theater Department.

This past semester, I worked on a study to evaluate the current version of Tripod that the libraries were using, and prepare some suggestions on how to migrate information from the Libraries’ website over to Tripod to make the homepage more robust and useful to students.

Research Questions:

  1. How might we better integrate contextual information about libraries and library services into Tripod (since that site is more frequently visited)?
  2. What information is most essential to users, and how do we make the information as accessible to them as possible?
  3. How do we make things intuitive while also adding the right amount of information?

To answer these questions, I drew on existing studies conducted by the UX team in the fall, such as our Libraries’ Website Usability sessions and Tripod Interviews, to gain a better understanding of how students use both sites. With this information, I drafted a list of recommended webpages for the new Tripod. I then conducted a closed card sort with the links and four categories that I had created myself.

Card Sorting

I spent a lot of time figuring out what links we were going to use and what we would name them. This went straight to research questions 2 and 3, since we couldn’t have too many links or the home page would become overwhelming, and the names needed to be intuitive. Some of the names were directly lifted from the Libraries’ website or live Tripod, while others were created.

Donna Spencer’s Card Sorting was very helpful in this process, as it taught me both the practical information of how to conduct a card-sorting session, while also clarifying the higher Information Architecture perspective on how to think about the data that I was gathering.

The data showed that for many links there was almost universal agreement about which of the four boxes it should go in, but for several there was the suggestion for a 5th category, called variously, “Talk to a Human,” “Tripod for Dummies,” etc. I termed this category Quick Links. Taking these suggestions, Mary developed a sandbox version of Tripod to conduct usability sessions with.

I had mocked up a proposal, below, which focused on symmetry and primarily utilized the original 4 proposed categories.

Eventually, we landed on this version, below, that included the fifth category as “Need Help?: Talk to a Human” which incorporated feedback about putting the opportunity for human interaction front and center.

Conducting Usability Sessions

Using the sandbox, I developed a series of tasks and scenarios to test its usability. The tasks aimed to encourage users to find pages on the website that are commonly used by students. The graphic below shows the results of the sessions, with the rows each representing one user’s responses to the 8 tasks (one task per column). Red means the user did not complete the task, Yellow indicates there was difficulty or confusion with the task, and Green indicates they successfully completed the task. White indicates facilitator error.

As the results demonstrate, there are some areas for improvement, but generally the Tripod Sandbox allowed for students to access the resources they were looking for.

Additional Feedback

The responses from open-ended conversations at the end of the usability sessions reveal important insights into what students want to see out of Tripod. Many students indicate that they liked having “Talk to a Human” on Tripod as a way to quickly connect with an actual librarian. Including the “email a librarian” function, a link to subject specialist librarians, and RIAs in this section could be helpful for allowing students to quickly find a person who can help them with a problem. Many students also indicate they would like more subheadings within the four basic  categories on the Tripod homepage, citing specifically the category “Research & Scholarship” as a little too broad. Initially, Mary and I prioritized symmetry for both the Find & Borrow and Research & Scholarship boxes and included four bullet points in each. But students indicated a preference for Asymmetry, like what Live Tripod has.

Next steps

One question that the entire process has brought up repeatedly, is how to design a Tripod that serves as many students as possible. Throughout the course of my UX Research, many STEM students indicated that they do not use Tripod very much if at all, and those who do prefer the Quick Links or things like Reserve a Space to be front and center on the Tripod homepage, whereas social science and humanities students vary wildly in their usage of Tripod, many going straight to Jstor or Google Scholar.

Future Tripod research would gain a lot from focusing specifically on how the different subject area majors interact with Tripod and trying to incorporate feedback in a way that maximizes utility across the disciplines

Posted on

Redesigning Special Collections on the Web

This post is by Anna Hansson, ’26, a double major in Computer Science and Mathematics with an emphasis in Statistics. Anna is interested in combining her passions for art and technology to explore UX Design.

This semester, I worked as a Library UX Intern on a new website design for the Special Collections page. The current page lacks adequate descriptions of the research catalogs: the Tri-College Libraries Digital Collections, Archives & Manuscripts, and Tripod. These databases are nuanced and can be difficult for novice users to navigate. Additionally, some users may have trouble distinguishing between the four special collections at Swarthmore: Friends Historical Library, College Archives, Peace Collection, and the Rare Book Room.

These problems sparked my research project, where I sought to answer: What content should go on the shared Special Collections library page, and how should it be organized for usability? My goal was to create a webpage that offers clear and intuitive access to each individual collection.

To start, I conducted research to understand the differences between the collections and the catalogs. I then designed a wireframe and developed it into a functional prototype using Drupal, Swarthmore’s content management system.

My main priority was to make the site easy to use, especially for new users. On the homepage, I created four boxes for each collection with a description and links for more information. I specifically worked on the “Search the Collections” page, which explains the different catalogs when to use them.

To evaluate the site’s design, I conducted usability sessions with two students. This research method is used to see how users interact with the site and identify design issues. I created scenarios where the site would be used to accomplish the task. Some scenarios I used were:

  • “You are working on a project about the Underground Railroad and want to find online resources for your assignment. Which Special Collection would you use?” 
  • “What catalog would you search in preparation for using Special Collections materials needed for a research project?”

Throughout the sessions, I asked the users what felt difficult and what was intuitive. Both participants commented that it was difficult to distinguish between the collections, specifically when to use the Friends Historical Library. Even with just two sessions, we start to see usability patterns, and further testing will help refine the site’s design.

The next steps of this project are to test more users to address usability challenges and to redesign the “Student Opportunities” page to improve layout and understanding.

Overall, this project was a valuable learning experience in web design and usability. I’m excited to apply the skills and insights I’ve gained to future work.

Posted on

Tripod and the Libraries’ Website Part II

My earlier post, Tripod and the Libraries’ Website: a Brief History, summarized structural and cultural reasons that explain our current, siloed library web landscape: why our website is less robust than those of other academic libraries (and under-used as a result) and why a majority of our users think of our integrated library system, Tripod, as “the library website.”

I think it’s a problem. Here’s why:

Equating Tripod and the libraries’ website implicitly communicates a narrow view of what a library is and undermines our value.

It conveys the message that libraries are simply repositories for resources: books on shelves and connections to online resources which may be accessed from anywhere.

And this is a best case scenario. Often, students bypass Tripod as a starting place and begin their search for resources externally (through Google Scholar, for example) without realizing the libraries are usually licensing the content and providing full-text access to the resources they discover there.

This behavior contributes to the breezy misconception some students have that they don’t use, or even need the libraries.

Google Scholar is great. It is simple to search – probably easier than Tripod. Perhaps that’s why some students start their research there.

This is fine, and an improved library website will not necessarily change this behavior.

But research is a craft that is learned and that the libraries help to teach. As students develop research skills, Tripod searches begun through a robust library website would expose them to a more complete information ecosystem, including Digital Scholarship, Archives, Special Collections, and librarian expertise.

Contextualizing Tripod within this ecosystem would communicate an awareness of what libraries offer beyond catalog search results and more accurately situate them as a comprehensive component of a Swarthmore liberal arts education.

On its own, Tripod is not capable of communicating the depth of contextual information a good website could provide.

We know from user research that many students are unaware of library services and confused by terms and concepts that affect their research. Despite steady growth in the number of library instruction sessions and research consultations we provide each year, we’re far from reaching everyone. Yet unless students receive library instruction of some kind, they may miss important learning for both information and digital literacies.

A dynamic, more highly functional website could help by filling gaps, demystifying terms and concepts, and by providing intuitive pathways to library expertise.

So if I’d made my case, how do we get there?

Even if we agree to begin to shift our culture toward creating a website that serves as a single portal to resources in the catalog and the breadth of library affordances, some of us are aware of the structural barriers inherent in the current swarthmore.edu Drupal design.

Usability studies continue to indicate that what we have does not work well and we are building a case for change by demonstrating our need for greater functionality. Although change may be incremental for now, there may be interesting paths forward.

Posted on

How many computers do we need?

This summer, the main floor of McCabe will be renovated in order to create a home for the Teaching and Learning Commons. In order to make room for and welcome our new neighbors, we need to reconfigure space near the large printers, reducing the number of computers in the area pictured, below, near the printers.

Computer workstations near the printers in McCabe

We’ve noticed less traffic in this area since the pandemic, but outside of anecdotal evidence, we need to learn how many desktop computers will meet our user’s needs. To find out, Access + User Services Supervisor, Patrick Sinko, and I looked at and analyzed the following data:

Quantitative Data

Our colleagues in ITS provided us with a spreadsheet that lists each computer in McCabe along with the following data points collected from August through December of 2023:

  • Number of logins
  • Total time the computer was in use, split between:
    • Active time
    • Idle time

We sorted the data by the number of logins and learned that the computers near the printer have the highest number – by far.

We next divided the amount of active time the computers were used by the number of logins to find an average of how much time people typically, actively spend at each of these computers and learned:

  • The computers closest to the printers are used for shorter periods of time, ranging from less than 10 minutes to up to 20 minutes
  • Computers further away from the printers are used for longer periods of time, with an overall average for these of 56 minutes
  • Users have a slight preference for Macs over PCs
  • PCs are used for longer periods of time than Macs

Qualitative data

Quantitative data is vital, but it doesn’t tell us why people choose to use computers in this area. To try to find out, we invited users to provide feedback via a form placed at each work station accessed by QR code. The form was anonymous, but to incentivize feedback, we agreed to send this “special edition sticker of McCabe” to any students who shared their names.

Special edition sticker of McCabe

We additionally included the row of docking stations in our qualitative study. (Docking stations are monitors + keyboards that people use connected to their personal device.) Even though the docking stations will remain available once the TLC renovation is complete, we wanted to get a sense of users’ preferences.

Docking stations (monitors + keyboards to be connected to personal devices) on the Main Floor

We received 32 responses to the form from February 2 through March 5, 2024. Here’s a summary of responses:

We first wanted to determine whether computer use was a priority, or whether perhaps the specific area of the library was a factor in choosing these spaces. We differentiated those possibilities in the first question on the form by asking “Why are you using this spot today?” and offered the following choices:

  • I’m using the computer or docking station
  • I like this spot and don’t need the computer or docking station
  • I’m here for both the equipment and the spot
  • Other

All but two users indicated that in addition to appreciating the spot, they were there to use the computer.

We next asked “If you’re using the computer, why?”

The qualitative data confirmed what we expected from the quantitative data: a majority of users were there to print. But what we had not anticipated was the level of desire for a larger (or additional) monitor.

Not wanting to carry (or having problems with) personal devices was the next highest reason, followed by one response for Access to Library Resources, and one for Access to Windows Applications.

Pie chart showing percentages for reasons why people choose to use the computers near the printers

Next, we hoped to learn how important it is to users that computers (or docking stations) remain in this area. The answer? Pretty important:

Graph showing the importance of keeping computers and docking stations near the printers

And finally, we wondered if our users have a preference for computers, or whether docking stations are fine. These results surprised me, since a docking station could just as easily satisfy the need for a larger, or second monitor and I had assumed a higher preference for these. I’ve just provided a great excellent example of why it’s important to get feedback from users rather than make assumptions. (You’re welcome!)

Pie chart showing preferences for computers or docking stations

Conclusion + Recommendations

It remains important for the libraries to provide computers near the printers, since as expected, they are used (a lot!) for printing.

  • If we keep our current furniture, reducing the number of tables from four to two will maintain space for 6 computers – a good number to accommodate printing needs. Since MACs are preferred, we could create a configuration of either 4 MACs and 2 PCs, or 3 of each type.
  • But if we swap out the current furniture for slightly less capacious workstations, we may be able to keep more computers in this area accommodating users who are drawn to work there for longer periods of time.

Although our form did not ask for specifics about why users like “this spot,” other studies (#SwatStudySpot, focus groups, and observational data) indicate preferences for:

  • natural light
  • a quiet hum of noise: quiet enough for focus, but without isolation and in the company of others
  • views to the outdoors or even expansive views inside buildings (high ceilings, large rooms, etc.)

While we may wish to find new homes in McCabe for the computers we’ll be moving away from the printers this summer, we should keep these characteristics in mind. Simply moving them to isolated places in McCabe may show decreased use.

Case in point: there are two computers on the 3rd floor that are used for longer periods of time (an average of 90 minutes or more) that are in an open lounge area near large windows and a balcony looking out over Parrish lawn. I would not have necessarily predicted this, but it makes perfect sense in light of what we know!

3rd floor lounge in McCabe with 2 Mac Computers

Posted on

Tripod and the Libraries’ Website: A Brief History

This is the first in a series of posts about Assessment and User Experience work on the libraries’ website and Tripod starting with a brief history of our current landscape (and with a nod to Kate Carter’s favorite canned search for “Bears: A Brief History.”)

The Libraries’ Website

Most academic library websites share a visual language. Above the fold it is common to see:

  • Prominent catalog search at the top of the page (See this example from Kenyon College)
  • A horizontal menu is across the top that drops down to expose top site content (See this example from Albion College)
  • Links near the top of the page for Hours, Research Help (often Chat) and access to “My Account” (See this example from Oberlin College)

Below the fold, a variety of additional information of interest is common, for example:

  • Quick Links to top resources, like this example at Bowdoin College
  • Current information: library news, exhibitions, and highlights of particular services like this example from Skidmore

People who pay attention to urls may notice that each of these library web addresses begin with the word library (or a variation: libraries, lib, etc.) followed by institution name dot edu.

This url tidbit indicates that many academic library sites are separate from and adjacent to the larger sites of their parent institutions and they usually toggle back and forth via persistent links near the top of library webpages (often through word stamp logos.)

Most importantly, these sites serve (at least visually and often, functionally) as a single portal to resources in the library catalog and library services. Is it possible for someone at Smith College to skip the library site and perform a catalog search starting directly from the catalog itself? Maybe, but it would be difficult. (Give it a try and you’ll see what I mean.)

Swarthmore is different

Our library site lives under the swarthmore.edu navigation hierarchy just like all the other departmental sites at the college. Our url begins with swarthmore followed by dot edu slash libraries. There are solid reasons for this, but library site navigation and design are necessarily limited by the options available on the College site. As a result, our library site can not share the visual language or navigation options common to other robust academic library sites because these would interfere with swarthmore.edu site navigation.

What about Tripod?

Swarthmore user behavior is “Tripod-centric” meaning most of our library users go straight to Tripod for their library needs, bypassing the website entirely. In fact, many people here think Tripod is the “library website.” Last year the UX Team ran a quick poll asking students if they were aware the libraries have a website in addition to Tripod. 52.2 % of responders said “No.”

It’s possible that our history with the Tri-College libraries contributes to this culture. Previous to our Integrated Library System (ILS) migration to Alma/Primo, Tripod was built on the Millennium interface using open-source software called VuFind as the discovery layer. Bryn Mawr servers hosted the system and the url for all of us was “tripod.brynmawr.edu” Here’s a view from 2016:

Tripod homepage circa 2016
screen capture from the Wayback Machine of the Tripod homepage in 2016

We migrated to Alma/Primo at the end of 2018 for many reasons, but chief among them was to help eliminate confusion about access to electronic resources.

In the Tripod iteration pictured above, since we all used the same (brynmawr) url, library users at any school would see all electronic resources in the catalog whether their school licensed access or not.

As a result, people at Bryn Mawr (for example) did not understand why they could not simply click and get access to a resource purchased and licensed at Swarthmore only. Since the resource was online, it didn’t make sense to them that they should need to travel to Swarthmore to access it (and many librarians, including myself, enabled some legally questionable pathways around this problem.)

Our current configuration with Primo mostly eliminates this issue. Each Trico Library now has a unique url for Tripod and users see only the electronic resources purchased and licensed for their college. This configuration also allows each Library to (mostly) customize the public face of Tripod to match their College’s branding since our urls are now separate and school specific.

When we conducted web usability sessions of Alma/Primo at the time of migration, one comment I heard repeatedly from Swarthmore users was appreciation for the new, tripod.swarthmore.edu url. (Who knew urls meant so much to people? Reader, I did not.)

I have worked with colleagues and UX Interns over the years to make incremental changes to the library website and Tripod in hopes they would speak to one another more fluently and to better align with web behavior expectations common to academic library websites generally.

But the structural issues with our website and the cultural issues with Tripod remain.

Understanding this background will inform forthcoming posts exploring where we might go from here. Stay tuned!

Posted on

#SwatStudySpot Project Wrap-up

This was an informative, fun, study with which to begin our year last fall. We invited students to fill out a brief form and upload a photograph of their favorite study spot in answer to our research question: What kinds of spaces help Swarthmore students focus on and accomplish their academic work?

The following preferences emerged:

  • Natural light (but even bright, interior lighting is better than darker spaces)
  • Expansive views – both interior views and views to the outdoors
  • Access to the outdoors and outdoor study spaces in good weather
  • Noise level preferences on a continuum from quiet spaces without any distractions to spaces with a low hum of activity, all the way to active, noisier spaces

Proximity to one’s dorm, options for food, and electrical outlets are preferred, as well as some things that are difficult to control – like the temperature of the room. (Thank you Underhill mezzanine for being “always warm when I’m cold.”)

UX Interns noted that study space preferences may shift over the course of a semester and depend on what kind of work they are trying to accomplish.

And an important thing I learned (which should not have surprised me) is the excellence of Swarthmore student photographers.

Sunlight illuminating interior study space in Singer Hall
Photo by Shuhao Ren, ’27
3rd floor lounge in McCabe looking out over the balcony to Parrish lawn and Clothier Tower
Photo by Emily Dong, ’27
Posted on

Launching our first 2023/24 project: Share Your Study Spot Photo: Get a Sticker

The UX Interns are launching our first user feedback project for the year: a photo journal study aptly called: Share Your Study Spot Photo.

We’ve created flyers, (well, Amanda created them. Thanks Amanda Bonnet!) are posting them around campus and will follow up in a few days inviting students via email to fill out this form, upload a photo of their favorite spot and let us know why it’s their favorite in exchange for a laptop (or water bottle) sticker.

We’re hoping to learn some things about what kinds of environments students want and need in order to focus on their academic work, but truthfully, we’re also hoping to spread the word about our UX work and build our level of engagement with the campus community.

The photos will help inform our vision for library space renovations too! Stay tuned for what we learn.

Posted on

The Student UX Team: What’s in Store for 23/24

After reflecting on how the Student UX Team has evolved for the past two years, I decided to do both less and more this coming year:

Less

There will be less administrative work. It comes at a cost of less flexibility for students, but I need this:

  • Rather than trying to accommodate all their schedules, I set a consistent time for a team meeting, with the understanding that I may be missing out on working with some excellent students who are not free to meet at the set time.
  • I capped the hours of independent work outside of the team meeting to two hours eliminating the need to follow up with students asking them to explain the hours they’ve submitted on timesheets and the worry that I’m not adequately tracking their work.

More

I’ve decided this is more than student employment. It is an Internship and expectations are higher:

  • Experiential learning + work experience + responsibility for an independent project = an Internship. My expectations for the students are higher and more specific.
  • They should expect more from me too. I’m far more organized this time around: I prioritized library projects and research needs and translated them into a syllabus that spans the academic year. It holds time for learning, training, practice, assessment, and reflection.
  • By the end, they will each have taken responsibility for planning and carrying out an independent user research project from soup to nuts, starting with articulating research questions, moving through identifying the best research method(s), carrying out research, analyzing results, and culminating in presenting their research to library leadership and other stakeholders.

What projects will we be working on?

  • Website Usability:
    • The Libraries’ Website, including the exploration of a possible new platform
    • Tripod enhancements and other discovery options
  • Qualitative research that contributes to the Libraries’ understanding of how Swarthmore students experience the libraries and in support of advocating for a major library renovation in the (near?) future:
    • A fun, photo journal study on most and least favorite study spaces on campus
    • Observational data on study space use
  • Quantitative research: Interns will contribute to crafting a student survey on the libraries to launch early in the spring semester.
  • Independent research projects: I’ve gathered a handful of departmental and college adjacent websites from which the Interns may choose as their independent research project.

I’m ready and eager to begin – let’s go!

Posted on

Library Spaces Focus Groups: February 2023

The Student UX Team ran two additional focus groups on the topic of Swarthmore’s Library spaces. This feedback amplified what we heard last October and provided some additional insight into why students prefer Cornell to McCabe coalescing around the following themes:

Location

  • Most students have at least one STEM major, making the Cornell collections more relevant
  • Singer Hall [the new Biology, Engineering, and Psychology building] helps create a center of gravity with the Science Building and Cornell Science Library
  • Food is a huge factor. The new Dining Center is on the opposite end of campus from the science buildings, so many students choose to eat in the Science Center Cafe and so use Cornell instead.
  • McCabe was known for strict rules during the pandemic (no eating in the library) which sent people to Cornell since the Science Center Cafe is right there.
  • “If you’re not going to the new dining center, why would you go to McCabe?”

Vibe

  • There’s better visibility in Cornell. You can easily find a friend in Cornell. McCabe is like a lair – it’s hard to find people.
  • People want to socialize more after the pandemic restrictions and Cornell is better for that.
  • McCabe is old fashioned and has a reputation that isn’t inviting. Cornell is newer and cleaner.
  • “McCabe is a prison. You only go there when you have to.”

Let’s Talk About McCabe

I study there because:

  • It has a nice mix of brightly lit and dim spaces and it’s close to my dorm
  • It’s close to Narples [the new Dining Center] but no other reason

I don’t study there because:

  • The vibe is off, not as positive as other libraries 
  • Other libraries are closer; when they go to McCabe, it’s because it’s just the most convenient
  • McCabe is like one very long hallway

I would use McCabe more often if:

  • There were food nearby
  • My friends studied there
  • It were closer to academic buildings

McCabe needs:

  • More windows and natural light
  • More rooms like the LibLab that are open and inviting
  • To be more sociable. Placement of study tables are awkward making it hard to find a spot

What qualities are unique to Swarthmore that should be reflected in its libraries?

  • Nature aspect of Swarthmore: incorporate it with more windows and larger windows
  • Swarthmore has a lot of different people with different study styles, and the libraries should give them the opportunity to have access to both collaborative and private spaces
  • Swarthmore is close knit – spaces should take being comfortable in a small community into account
  • Books – they give the building life
  • Seeing people work motivates – work spaces with visibility
  • The Library should try to reflect the rich academic history of Swarthmore, McCabe can showcase some interesting historical artifacts from Friends Library, or Special Collections
Posted on

LabX Focus Group 10.6.22

This group was made up of students who replied to an invitation to join a standing Library Advisory Board and User eXperience group, LabX. The yield from the invitation was small, so I invited more students from the Participant Pool, which yielded just one more. It could be there is less interest in LabX since the pandemic, or it could be simply a timing issue – it’s midterm week. The incentive to participate was a meal (provided by the Libraries) of Chipotle Burritos. Students arrived, exchanged introductions, began to converse over the meal and were then invited to participate in the following exercises facilitated by two UX Assistants:

Agree/Disagree Exercise

Two signs on the wall represented a continuum: Agree on the far left, and Disagree on the far right. Students were invited to place themselves on the continuum to represent their response to the following statements:

The Libraries are where I like to study: 5 Agreed

Comments were about the vibes at different libraries matching different needs for times of day and types of study. McCabe is quiet and where students go when they need to focus. Cornell fits for a daytime space or for times when it helps to know you are not alone. Underhill was noted for the space overlooking the Crumb Woods. One student commented that their dorm room is for relaxation and sleep only and talked about the importance of being in different spaces for different activities. The libraries are study spaces.

I need the Libraries for my academic work: 2 Agreed, 1 Neutral, 2 Disagreed

Although one student spoke of using books on reserve, most equated a need for the libraries with the need for study space.

Quote: ” The libraries are becoming more of a study space and less a repository for human knowledge.“

There is a good balance of quiet and noisier space in the libraries – I can find a spot that suits my needs: 2 Agreed, 1 Neutral, 2 Disagreed

A lengthy discussion unfolded about noise levels with a unanimous desire for clearer indications for expectations on library signs. One student noted that the McCabe Directory indicates the Lower Level as a Quiet Floor and suggested we add the following – both to the Directory and to the signs as you enter each level:

  • Third Floor: Quiet Floor
  • Second Floor: Quiet Conversation
  • Main Level: open conversation is obviously ok – no sign needed

I appreciate learning about Library and Campus opportunities via [class list] emails: 2 Agreed, 2 Neutral (1 participant needed to leave early)

Representative Quotes:

  • ” I prefer to figure things out for myself and find the emails a nuisance. Emails from the library got lost in the flood”
  • ” I look through each of them. They help me learn of opportunities.”
  • “A monthly digest would be good. I wish there were a useful calendar rather than 500 emails.” (This comment received universal consensus)

I Like / I Wish / I Want Exercise

Students responded to these three prompts using post it notes and small dots for upvoting. Responses are below, with + signs added to indicate the number of upvotes. This exercise was intended to build suggestions and topics for future discussion and there was little inquiry or follow up to the ideas.

I Like

  • The authoritative quiet of McCabe Level 3
  • How we can appreciate nature in the middle of reading. ++
  • The variety of seating options in the libraries. +

I Wish

  • There were book recommendations from Swarthmore Faculty. +
  • There were maps of all the library interiors. ++
  • There were group quiet work sessions – like the Writing Center’s Write-Ins
  • Books were more accessible
  • There were LOC Call # education for all (or just more signs)

I Want

  • Better publicity for the loanable chargers and headphones
  • Better, more comfortable reading chairs in McCabe – like in Cornell’s upper floor corner
  • More pencils, paper, school supplies in the libraries. +
  • It to be warmer at night
  • More clarity for when snacks and drinks are available in McCabe
  • Shared information about how to read / write
  • Equipment for studying, like bookstands. +

Concluding Quote:

“With less use of circulating library materials, we should focus on the study spaces and the expertise of those who work in the library. How can we make these libraries of the future?”