Microsoft Word - June_ITAL_Nelson_final.docx What’s  In  A  Word?  Rethinking  Facet   Headings  in  a  Discovery  Service       David  Nelson  and   Linda  Turney     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           76   ABSTRACT   The  emergence  of  discovery  systems  has  been  well  received  by  libraries  who  have  long  been   concerned  with  offering  a  smorgasbord  of  databases  that  require  either  individual  searching  of   databases  or  the  problematic  use  of  federated  searching.  The  ability  to  search  across  a  wide  array  of   subscribed  and  open-­‐access  information  resources  via  a  centralized  index  has  opened  up  access  for   users  to  a  library’s  wealth  of  information  resources.  This  capability  has  been  particularly  praised  for   its  “Google-­‐like”  search  interface,  thereby  conforming  to  user  expectations  for  information  searching.   Yet  all  discovery  services  also  include  facets  as  a  search  capability  and  thus  provide  faceted   navigation  that  is  a  search  feature  for  which  Google  is  not  particularly  well  suited.  Discovery  services   thus  provide  a  hybrid  search  interface.  An  examination  of  e-­‐commerce  sites  clearly  shows  that   faceted  navigation  is  an  integral  part  of  their  discovery  systems.  Many  library  OPACs  also  now  are   being  developed  with  faceted  navigation  capabilities.  However,  the  discovery  services  faceted   structures  suffer  from  a  number  of  problems  that  inhibit  their  usefulness  and  their  potential.  This   article  examines  several  of  these  issues  and  offers  suggestions  for  improving  the  discovery  search   interface.  It  also  argues  that  vendors  and  libraries  need  to  work  together  to  more  closely  analyze  the   user  experience  of  the  discovery  system.   INTRODUCTION   The  emergence  of  Google  as  the  premier  search  engine1  has  had  a  very  profound  effect  on  searcher   expectations  regarding  information.2  By  virtue  of  its  simplicity  and  the  remarkably  powerful   search  algorithms  that  enable  its  highly  relevant  results,  the  simple  search  box  of  Google  has   clearly  triumphed  as  the  preferred  way  to  find  information.     But  is  the  Google  search  model  really  the  panacea  that  libraries  need  to  resolve  their  search   interface  requirements?  The  nature  of  search  engine  and  search  interface  design  is  a  very  complex   issue.  Unfortunately  for  academic  libraries,  Google  has  dominated  discussions  and  thinking  about   search  engine  interfaces:  “Just  Google  it!”  Is  a  simple  Google  search  box  really  the  preferred   vehicle  with  which  libraries  should  be  delivering  their  content,  both  licensed  and  unlicensed?     The  assumption  librarians  make  to  justify  the  use  of  a  Google  model  is  that  library  users  are   essentially  Google  users,3  or  that  they  have  the  same  information  searching  needs.4  This  is  a     David  Nelson  (David.Nelson@mtsu.edu),  is  Chair,  Collection  Development  and  Management,  and   Linda  Turney  (Linda.Turney@mtsu.edu)  is  Cataloging  Librarian,  James  E.  Walker  Library,  Middle   Tennessee  State  University,  Murfreesboro,  Tennessee.     WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   77   flawed  assumption.  As  an  academic  library,  we  are  tasked  with  making  discoverable  not  simply   digital-­‐only  information,  but  information  objects  with  discrete  characteristics  that  often  constitute   the  object  of  a  search,  e.g.,  an  audio  book,  a  film,  or  even  a  book  on  a  shelf.  Google  has  put  the   emphasis  on  the  keyword,  with  remarkably  gratifying  results  for  the  average  lay  user.  However,  a   recent  Project  Information  Literacy  study  concluded  that  “Google-­‐centric  search  skills  that   freshmen  bring  from  high  school  only  get  them  so  far—but  not  far  enough—with  finding  and   using  the  trusted  sources  they  need  for  fulfilling  college  research  assignments.”5  Until  now,  the   library  web  development  focus  on  providing  a  “Google-­‐like”  search  has,  unfortunately,  diverted   attention  from  an  appreciation  of  the  developments  in  other  areas  of  the  Internet  world,  such  as  e-­‐ commerce,  where  searching  for  information  is  an  integral  component  of  the  buyer–seller   relationship.     Commercial  entities  have  a  vested  interest  in  developing  their  websites  to  enable  each  user  to   have  a  successful  search  outcome.  While  the  search  interfaces  routinely  encountered  at  various  e-­‐ commerce  sites  may  seem  obvious,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  one  is  looking  at  a  series  of   deliberate  decisions  made  with  regard  to  the  interface  organization  and  structure.  For  companies,   the  search  interface  represents  millions  of  dollars  in  investment,  and  the  design  is  part  of  their   search  engine  optimization  strategy.6  In  this  way,  companies  and  other  organizations  create   robust  search  interfaces  that  enable  visitors  to  effectively  and  efficiently  find  what  they  want  in   the  company  “knowledgebase.”     It  is  clear  that  the  product  search  industry  has  arrived  at  some  very  significant  conclusions  about   user  search  behavior,  and  that  they  strive  to  optimize  their  interfaces  to  accommodate  those   conclusions.  Three  features  stand  out:  (1)  the  importance  of  facets  as  a  key  component  in  the   search  design;  (2)  the  personalization  of  the  text  that  instructs  the  user;  and  (3)  intelligibility  of   facet  labels.  In  a  blog  article  on  facets  in  e-­‐commerce  websites,  Scharnell  advises  that,  when   determining  what  the  facets  are,  there  are  two  rules  to  follow:  (1)  keep  it  simple;  and  (2)  create  an   intuitive  structure.7     The  primary  goal  of  a  commercial  website  is  to  bring  about  what  is  called  conversion—that  is,   getting  someone  to  the  site  (driving  traffic)  and,  ultimately,  making  a  sale  (the  conversion).   Companies  have  discovered  that  facets  are  the  key  to  enabling  their  potential  customers  to  locate   discrete  pieces  of  information  (e.g.,  a  product)  almost  intuitively.  Broughton  observes  that  “there   is  an  evident  faceted  approach  to  product  information  in  many  commercial  websites.”8  An   important  characteristic  of  the  faceted  structure  is  that  it  enables  the  user  to  have  the  ability  to   browse  a  collection.  Thus  the  goals  of  a  commercial  site  successfully  employing  faceted  navigation   is  not  that  different  from  the  objectives  which  a  library  discovery  layer  seeks  to  accomplish.  While   the  literature  on  information  literacy  is  now  vast,  very  few  articles  deal  with  the  role  that  facets   play  in  the  discovery  process  for  student  searchers.  Fagan  is  an  author  who  has  addressed  this   issue  of  facets.9  Ramdeen  and  Hemminger  discuss  the  role  of  facets  in  the  library  catalog.  10  To   date,  reviews  of  discovery  systems  or  catalog  interfaces  tend  to  place  emphasis  on  helping  patrons     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           78   to  search  our  demonstrably  flawed  systems  rather  than  considering  the  interfaces  as  the  actual   source  of  problems  for  users.11   While  it  can  be  argued  that  comparing  an  academic  site  and  a  commercial  site  compares  apples   and  oranges,  there  being  little  connection  between  the  complex,  open-­‐ended  subject/research   questions  and  searching  a  company’s  inventory  of  goods.  However,  there  are  elements  of   commonality  at  the  higher  level  of  an  information  need  that  drive  an  individual  to  perform  any   kind  of  information  search.  In  both  the  subject/topic  search  and  the  product  search  there  is  a  need   to  evaluate  results  as  they  appear  and  to  make  various  decisions  while  going  through  a  search   process  to  limit  and  narrow  a  search.  That  is,  for  the  information  that  libraries  seek  to  make   discoverable,  it  is  often  their  extratextual  characteristics  that  are  every  bit  as  important  as  the   content  itself.     This  leads  to  a  discussion  of  facets,  the  various  attributes  by  which  we  can  further  describe  the   “manifestation”  and  the  “expression”  (using  the  FRBR  sense  here)  of  an  intellectual  creation.  We   need  to  pay  more  attention  to  the  importance  of  facets  as  a  critical  component  of  the  search   process.  That  is,  we  must  begin  to  move  away  from  the  mantra  that  our  single  search  box  will   provide  a  successful  result  without  additional  considerations,  with  the  idea  that  the  facets  are  of   secondary,  even  tertiary  importance.  Badke  observes  “that  users  of  Google  actually  need  a  deeper   level  of  information  literacy  because  Google  offers  so  little  opportunity  to  nuance  or  facet   results.”12     Yet  facets  are  a  key  part  of  our  discovery  interface  design.  However,  a  full  and  successful   exploitation  of  their  possibilities  has  been  significantly  hobbled  by  a  use  of  jargon-­‐heavy   terminology  that  assumes  users  will  immediately  and  instinctively  grasp  the  concept  of  a  faceted   term.  Even  a  superficial  study  of  many  successful  commercial  websites  quickly  leads  the   thoughtful  observer  to  the  conclusion  that  their  web  developers  and  designers  have  been  making   excellent  use  of  focus  groups  and  surveys  to  make  the  search  process  as  easy  as  possible.  While   businesses  have  an  obvious  monetary  incentive  to  make  sure  their  users  do  not  leave  a  site   because  the  site  itself  presented  a  problem,  libraries  have  the  same  interest  in  making  sure  our   users  are  equally  able  to  easily  search  our  site.  A  library’s  site  should  not,  by  its  assumptions  about   the  user,  present  obstacles  to  their  search  success.13   With  the  growing  use  of  discovery  systems,14  academic  libraries  are  entering  into  a  new  phase  of   search  engine  deployment.15  By  making  use  of  a  preindexed  database  rather  than  the  more   restrictive  federated  search  process,  the  discovery  service  interface  allows  a  user  to  search  for   content  in  a  wide  variety  of  publication  and  media  types  (e.g.,  journals,  books,  dictionaries,  audio   books,  videos,  manuscripts,  newspapers,  images,  etc.).  To  assist  searchers,  discovery  systems   provide  faceted  navigation  along  with  the  search  box  interface.  Several  studies  have  shown  that   the  use  of  facets  in  the  library  environment  has  proven  effective  in  assisting  searchers.16  However,   it  is  equally  clear  that  library  vendors  have  not  thought  deeply  about  the  facet  category  labels,  and   libraries,  which  can  do  a  certain  amount  of  customization,  tend  toward  unquestioning  acceptance     WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   79   of  the  vendor-­‐supplied  labels.  This  is  a  critical  area  involving  both  the  user  interface  and  the  user   experience;  libraries  and  vendors  need  to  spend  far  more  time  and  effort  on  ensuring  the   intelligibility  of  the  facet  labels  and  on  finding  effective  ways  to  encourage  their  use.   The  presence  of  facets  is  a  standard  feature  for  all  library  discovery  systems.17  However,  as  we   will  show  below,  facet  labels  are  not  easily  understandable  for  the  average  user  and  our  search   systems  tend  toward  emphasizing  our  users  as  “anonymous  service  recipient(s).”     What  are  facets?  A  review  of  various  discussions  of  facets  in  information  retrieval  literature   reveals  the  elasticity  of  the  term,  along  with  related  terms.18  Will  observes  that  “what  a  facet  is  has   been  stretched  .  .  .  and  the  term  is  used  loosely  to  mean  any  system  in  which  terms  are  selected   from  pre-­‐defined  groups  at  the  time  of  searching.”19  It  is  probably  easiest  to  understand  the  use  of   the  term  facet  in  information  retrieval  systems  as  categories  derived  from  the  universe  of  objects   that  one  is  seeking  to  discover,  whether  we  are  dealing  with  manufactured  products  at  Home   Depot  or  Greek  manuscripts  in  a  library  collection.20  What  adds  to  the  problem  of  definition  is  the   number  of  synonyms:  “The  term  facet  is  commonly  considered  as  analogous  to  category,  attribute,   class  and  concept.”21  How  objects  are  grouped  would  most  logically  determine  the  facets  that  are   necessary  for  the  classification  scheme.  It  is  the  objects  that  are  under  a  facet  that  present  a   problem  in  understanding.  NISO  Z39.19  defines  facets  as  “attributes  of  content  objects   encompassing  various  non-­‐semantic  aspects  of  a  document,”22  thus  including  such  things  as  author,   language,  format,  etc.  The  terms  that  are  indexed  are  not  the  facets  but  rather  concepts  that  exist   in  a  unique  relationship  to  the  facet.  “Homer”  is  indexed  under  a  facet  “author,”  but  indexing  the   term  author  is  meaningless.     Another  source  of  confusion  is  the  failure  to  distinguish  between  facets  and  filters,  both  of  which   are  used  to  refine  or  narrow  a  search.23  When  a  search  interface  states  that  it  is  using  “faceted   navigation,”  usually  both  facets  and  filters  are  present.     Because  both  a  facet  and  a  filter  are  part  of  retrieval,  it  is  often  difficult  to  separate  the  two.  Once   again,  we  encounter  a  terminological  problem.  For  example,  one  can  speak  of  how  a  facet  itself  is   used  to  filter  a  search  in  the  sense  that  it  refines  or  narrows  a  search  to  a  smaller  segment  of  the   universe  of  objects.  Here  the  term  filter  refers  to  the  process  of  narrowing  a  search.  But  we  also   have  filters  that  deal  with  ranges.  Thus,  the  filter  “date”  covers  a  range  of  time,  from  say  one   month  or  one  year,  to  a  range  over  a  specific  period  of  time.  The  same  can  be  seen  for  the  filter   “price,”  used  to  specify  only  one  amount,  say  $5,  or  a  range  from  $100  to  $299.  The  critical   difference  between  a  facet  and  a  range  filter  is  that  the  terms  found  in  a  facet  are  indexed  while  a   range  filter  (e.g.,  date  or  price)  is  not  an  indexed  term.  It  is  important  to  maintain  a  clear   distinction  between  a  facet  and  a  range  filter  because  the  underlying  metadata  is  different.  A  range   filter  sorts  the  content  in  a  specific  way  and  at  the  same  time  narrows  the  results.     Our  examples,  along  with  the  closer  analysis  of  the  EBSCO  EDS  discovery  system  below,  will  amply   demonstrate  that  facets  and  filters  are  extremely  effective  in  information  retrieval  systems.  The     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           80   challenge  that  libraries  face  is  the  need  to  make  sure  that  users  are  aware  of  their  presence  on  a   search  interface  rather  than  relying  exclusively  on  keywords  alone  and  solely  on  the   algorithmically  based  result.24  The  value  of  the  faceted/filtered  search  is  the  ability  to  lead  the   searcher  quickly  and  efficiently  to  the  desired  result,  a  result  that  will  too  often  elude  the  user   even  with  a  powerful  Google  search,  unless  that  user  gets  most  of  the  terms  exactly  right.   We  chose  various  e-­‐commerce  websites  because  they  have  extremely  large  numbers  of  site  visits   or  because  they  were  smaller  specialty  sites  that  reflected  a  more  highly  optimized  use  of  facets.  A   wide  range  of  product  types  was  in  the  selection.  The  frequency  of  visits  indicates  that  large   numbers  of  users  are  exposed  to  a  search  page  structure  and  terminology,  which  in  turn   establishes  a  standard  for  a  set  of  user  expectations.  Best  Buy,  Target,  and  Home  Depot  are  among   the  top  on  hundred  accessed  websites,  a  fact  richly  indicative  of  the  type  of  influence  they  will   have  in  setting  user  search  expectations.  An  examination  of  these  websites  reveals  an  underlying   set  of  best  practices  for  making  use  of  faceted  navigation  with  text  searching.   Linguistic  Personalization   With  the  advent  of  Web  2.0  there  are  several  forms  of  interaction  an  individual  can  have  with  a   website.  These  can  be  considered  forms  of  personalization  of  websites.25  Usually,  personalization   is  “largely  about  filtering  content  to  satisfy  an  individual’s  particular”  information  needs.26  We  see   personalization  at  its  most  complex  in  the  algorithmically  adjusted  results  to  a  search  based  on   previous  searches.  There  we  find  the  feature  of  suggestions  that  are  offered  to  an  individual  on  the   basis  of  search  results,  a  feature  offered  by  Amazon  and  Netflix.  While  we  will  not  be  able  to   personalize  our  discovery  services  in  a  manner  similar  to  Netflix  or  Amazon,  we  can  improve  the   quality  of  the  interaction  in  other  areas  of  “personalization.”  We  should  be  seeking  ways  we  can   more  directly  speak  to  individual  searchers,  for  example,  by  selecting  words  and  phrases  that   speak  directly  to  a  person’s  needs.   Our  examination  of  many  e-­‐commerce  sites  reveals  a  robust  use  of  linguistically  personalized   features  as  an  intrinsic  part  of  their  website  design  and  enhancement.  That  is,     e-­‐commerce  sites  make  use  of  their  interface  itself  to  directly  communicate  with  their  customers   in  a  way  that  makes  use  of  certain  linguistic  features  that  can  be  easily  adopted  by  library  sites.   Combined  with  faceted  searching,  adding  certain  linguistic  features  should  prove  effective  in   encouraging  the  use  of  the  facets,  and  in  the  process  improve  both  the  search  results  and  the  user   experience.  This  constitutes  the  fundamental  challenge  for  the  academic  library—to  help  shape   the  mental  model  with  regard  to  the  universe  of  content  that  we  provide  through  our  search   interface.  Finally,  there  is  what  we  can  consider  a  form  of  linguistic  personalization  with  which   language  is  used  to  “speak”  more  directly  to  a  searcher.  It  is  this  third  feature  of  linguistic   personalization  that  libraries  can  more  easily  control  and  customize  with  the  discovery  services,   as  well  as  at  other  places  on  the  library  website.     WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   81   There  is,  of  course,  the  personalization  that  is  intended  primarily  for  those  who  register  and  then   set  up  their  own  accounts.  However,  there  is  also  the  personalization  in  terms  of  text   communication  in  which  the  website  uses  both  pronouns  and  verb  forms  that  directly  address  the   searcher.  This  is  seen  in  the  use  of  the  second-­‐person  pronoun,  either  the  subject  or  the  possessive,   “you”  or  “your,”  and  for  verbal  forms,  the  use  of  the  second-­‐person  imperative  (usually  the  same  as   the  infinitive  in  English).  This  type  of  personalization  is  a  web  design  decision.  The  search  box   now  frequently  contains  text,  ranging  from  simple  noun  lists  to  sentences,  all  of  which  are   intended  to  encourage  the  user  to  make  use  of  the  search  capabilities.  After  a  search  has  occurred,   the  results  are  also  indicated  with  text  that  speaks  directly  to  a  person  by  means  of  the  use  of   pronouns  and  verbs.  We  find  the  following  interesting  examples  in  table  1:   Pronoun   Site   Notes   What  are  you  looking  for  today?   Kroger   Search  box   What  can  we  help  you  find?   Home  Depot   Search  box   What  are  you  looking  for?   Lowe’s   Search  box   Your  selections   Target   Post-­‐search   We  found  x  results  for  [search  term]   Target   Post-­‐search   Narrow  your  results   Tigerdirect   Post-­‐search   Table  1.  Linguistic  Personalization  Examples   In  examining  the  features  that  are  found  at  these  e-­‐commerce  sites,  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  use   of  either  of  two  words  for  the  facet  instructions:  Refine  or  Narrow,  two  words  our  users  will   routinely  encounter  in  nonlibrary  searching.     The  various  sites  all  have  the  following  elements:   1.  search  box   2.  search  results  outcome  clearly  shown   3.  facet  instruction  [“refine,”  “narrow,”  “show”]     4.  facets         INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           82   Major  Problems  with  Library  Discovery  Interfaces   We  can  identify  three  important  areas  that  need  to  be  considered  with  the  discovery  interface   design:   1.  the  search  box  itself   2.  the  facet  labels  and  their  intelligibility   3.  getting  the  user  to  the  facets  area     The  Library  Search  Box   The  search  box  makes  an  excellent  point  of  departure  for  implementing  improvements  of  the   library’s  discovery  interfaces.  Note  that  companies  do  not  assume  prior  search  knowledge  on  the   part  of  their  potential  market;  they  explicitly  tell  people  what  they  can  do  in  the  search  box.  As  we   see  in  table  1,  many  companies  (e.g.,  Home  Depot  and  Lowe’s)  are  choosing  to  use  entire   sentences,  not  merely  clipped  phrases  or  strings  of  nouns.     Many  libraries  are  beginning  to  populate  the  search  box  with  text.  However,  that  text  is  often   simply  a  noun  list  of  types  of  formats,  e.g.,  articles,  books,  media,  etc.  It  is  important  to  point  out   that  there  is  an  implicit  expectation  of  an  action  present  in  a  search  box.  But  too  often  when  our   library  websites  supply  a  list  of  nouns,  we  are  assuming  that  we  are  answering  the  question  in  the   mind  of  the  searcher—they  are  looking  for  a  subject  or  topic—and  we  supply  a  string  of  nouns   that  enumerate  formats.  So  right  from  the  beginning,  we  find  a  mismatch  between  the  user’s   purpose  when  coming  to  a  library’s  search  box  and  our  arbitrary  enumeration  not  of  topics,  but  of   types  of  information  sources.   Once  we  recognize  this  problem,  we  have  some  very  good  options  to  choose  from  in  terms  of   personalizing  the  search  box  in  a  way  that  is  more  analogous  to  what  Home  Depot  and  Lowe’s   offer:   1.  What  are  you  looking  for?   The  sentence  above  is  colloquial;  it  is  exactly  what  a  person  would  expect  to  hear  when   approaching  a  reference  librarian  or  from  a  service  counter  experience  in  a  variety  of  settings.   2.  What  are  you  searching  for?   This  is  a  more  complex  concept  because  it  includes  what  can  be  considered  a  technical  term   (“search”),  a  word  now  commonly  understood  within  the  context  of  searching  for  information  and   not  only  applicable  to  a  lost  dog  or  strayed  notebook.     This  simple  adjustment  matches  the  user’s  intent  with  a  clearly  stated  purpose  in  the  search  box.   There  are  additional  ways  we  can  enrich  the  search  box  that  will  assist  the  users  in  their  queries.       WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   83   Both  examples  use  the  pronoun  you  so  that  the  sentence  speaks  directly  to  the  individual  searcher.   There  is,  of  course,  the  option  to  just  use  a  verb  in  the  imperative:  “Search  for  .  .  .”    or  “Enter   [keywords,  terms,  etc.]”.  However,  the  added  feature  of  the  pronoun  you  promotes  the   involvement  of  the  participant-­‐searcher.  See  also  the  interesting  article  by  Thompson  on  the  use  of   personal  pronouns  in  social  media  communications  by  university  students.27     Facets  Column   All  library  discovery  services  make  use  of  facets.  Since  the  facets  column  does  constitute  a  far   more  challenging  area  of  linguistic  personalization  for  the  discovery  interface,  the  incorporation  of   specific  types  of  design  features  should  be  employed  to  immediately  attract  the  attention  of  the   user  to  the  facets  column.  This  is  a  very  complicated  area  that  deals  with  user  behavior,  interface   design,  etc.  How  do  we  direct  the  user’s  attention  to  the  facets  column,  let  alone  to  be  aware  of  the   facets  on  the  lefthand  side?  We  can  add  a  note  after  a  search  that  says  something  to  the  effect  of   “too  many  results/hits?  Try  narrowing  your  search  with  the  facets  below.”  Although  this  involves   difficult  interface  design  issues,  it  is  very  important  that  we  begin  to  think  more  seriously  about   ways  to  draw  our  users  into  the  search  process  more  intuitively  and  effectively.  If  we  don’t,  we   will  find  the  continual  underutilization  of  an  incredibly  powerful  searching  feature.   We  also  know  that  users  routinely  ignore  advertising  banners  so  often  that  the  literature  has   christened  this  tendency  “banner  blindness”;  in  the  same  way,  if  our  facet  labels  are  meaningless,   they  will  be  overlooked.28  We  condemn  the  discovery  service  interface  to  the  same  fate  if  we  are   not  careful  to  choose  meaningful  labels  that  make  sense  when  the  “average”  student  or  faculty   user  encounters  them.  Currently,  we  are  also  assuming  knowledge  on  the  part  of  our  users  that  is   clearly  misplaced  or  we  anticipate  a  much  greater  success  with  instruction  than  is  usually   warranted.  There  are  several  studies  that  show  the  disparity  between  the  searcher’s  self-­‐ assessment  and  the  reality  of  the  actual  skill  possessed.29   One  of  the  main  problems  users  experience  with  search  engines  is  their  inability  to  narrow  their   searches,  especially  because  we  are  now  dealing  with  such  a  large  array  of  information  source   types.30  This  is  where  the  use  of  facets  comes  into  its  own.  As  we  seek  to  make  the  discovery   interface  the  first  and,  eventually,  probably  the  only  primary  interface  to  our  selected  resources,   the  user  needs  to  know  how  to  easily  find  a  video  or  a  sound  recording  as  well  as  a  pertinent   article.  This  should  be  done  through  an  easily  accessible  and  understandable  search  interface.  The   success  of  the  e-­‐commerce  sites  in  making  effective  and  profitable  use  of  facets  amply   demonstrates  the  value  of  facets  even  for  complex  research  questions  and  topics.   This  brings  up  the  matter  of  naming  conventions  for  the  facets.  It  is  clear  that,  despite  the  newness   of  discovery  services,  the  facet  labels  simply  continue  the  naming  conventions  that  are  used  in   databases.  We  know  from  usability  studies  that  library  jargon  is  a  stumbling  block  for  our  users.31   When  we  do  not  pay  close  attention  to  the  appropriateness  of  each  facet  category  label,  we  simply   continue  the  utilization  of  a  terminology  that  is  foreign  to  the  understanding  of  many  of  our     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           84   users,32  undermining  the  use  of  a  powerful  searching  feature  merely  because  of  user  ignorance  of   the  terms.  An  honest  appraisal  of  the  discovery  interface  will  bring  us  immediately  face-­‐to-­‐face   with  one  of  our  primary  legacy  library  problems,  our  heavily  jargon-­‐laden  vocabulary.  In  fact,  we   are  actually  dealing  simultaneously  with  two  problems—the  facet  labels  that  are  chosen  and  the   complexity  of  the  information  universe  that  discovery  systems  expose.  At  a  presentation  on   discovery  services  at  the  2014  ALA  Annual  Conference,  one  speaker  went  so  far  as  to  say  that   facets  are  not  used  in  discovery  searches.33  This  underscores  the  unpleasant  reality  that  we  are   dealing  with  both  a  design  problem  and  an  intelligibility  problem,  not  the  failure  of  facets  as  a   navigational  feature.  At  a  recent  LOEX  presentation,  one  school  had  already  thrown  in  the  towel   and  will  concentrate  on  teaching  Academic  Search  Premier  over  the  discovery  service  Primo.34   Again,  this  reveals  that  users  are  having  a  problem  with  the  interface  and  its  display  content.     Suggestions  for  Improving  Facets  and  the  Facet  Labels   Currently,  the  facet  labels  in  library  discovery  service  interfaces  are  limited  to  a  list  of  nouns  that   designate  the  facets  that  can  be  used  for  narrowing  or  limiting  a  search.  However,  the  labels  that   we  use  may  not  be  meaningful  to  our  users  and  are  simply  a  list  of  nouns  that  are,  by  and  large,   not  really  understood.35  Second,  a  facet  label  is  also  intended  to  have  the  user  do  something,  hence   a  verb  of  action  is  implied.  In  standard  classification  taxonomies,  the  facet  is  used  for  organizing   and  grouping  the  objects  that  will  be  included  in  the  facet.  For  a  discovery  system,  the  facet  is   there  to  lead  the  searcher  to  content  on  the  basis  of  the  content’s  differing  characteristics  as   expressed  through  a  facet.  One  has  to  ask  the  question,  exactly  why  would  a  student  do  something   simply  because  that  student  sees  a  noun  on  the  lefthand  side?  We  need  to  provide  more  context   during  the  search  process.   Below  we  make  recommendations  that  we  think  will  enhance  the  intelligibility  and  the  usability  of   facets.36  It  will  be  important  for  libraries  and  vendors  to  do  substantial  user  experience   investigations  into  the  various  options  that  are  available  for  use  on  a  discovery  page.  Our  goal  is  to   draw  attention  to  the  current  inadequacies  in  how  facets  have  been  implemented  in  discovery   services  and  to  encourage  a  more  systematic  approach  to  this  important  area  of  our  library   information  delivery  capabilities.     1. As  observed  above,  in  the  e-­‐commerce  sites,  the  facet  is  indicated  by  the  presence  of  an   icon  marker  that  allows  for  the  facet  to  expand  and  contract.  In  our  sample  of  sites,   there  was  a  parity  between  using  the  +/-­‐  sign  or  a  triangle  (a  full  triangle,  not  a  right   and  downward  chevron).  EDS  made  the  decision  to  go  with  the  chevron  symbol.  This  is   a  user  interface  issue  and  one  that  needs  further  examination  and  testing.  We  think   that  the  +/-­‐  sign  is  a  more  suitable  visual  icon  indicator  for  a  user  to  take  a  specific   action.  +/-­‐  also  have  a  value  attached  to  them  that  says  to  a  user  “yes”  for  the  +  sign  and   “no”  for  the  -­‐  sign,  thereby  signaling  a  user  to  expand  (+)  or  contract  (-­‐)  a  list.  We  want   to  attract  users  to  the  facets  and  to  take  an  action.       WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   85   2. Make  sure  that  only  facets  and  filters  are  collapsible  and  expendable  and  that  the   design  interface  makes  this  clear.   3. The  term  limit  is  often  found  in  discovery  systems.  This  is  a  term  that  was  not  found  in   our  sample  of  e-­‐commerce  sites.  The  two  primary  terms  are  refine  and  narrow.  The   advantage  of  using  these  terms  is  that  one  can  more  easily  personalize  this  feature,   “Narrow  your  results  to”  [Full  text]  [Scholarly    .  .  .]  [Date];  these  are  two  words  that   users  normally  see  when  searching  e-­‐commerce  sites.   4. The  facet  “source  types”  is  a  common  facet  label.  This  is  obscure  terminology  that  users,   especially  students,  tend  not  to  know.  A  suitable  option  to  personalize  this  category   could  be,  “What  type  of  information  do  you  need?”  and  then  list  the  types.  At  least  by   asking  the  question,  a  user  will  be  encouraged  to  look  at  the  possibilities  available,  e.g.,   academic  journals,  trade  publications,  magazines,  etc.     In  the  following  list  of  facets,  we  can  see  that  the  facets  themselves  are  inherently  contradictory  or   do  not  actually  represent  what  they  purport  to  be.  This  is  not  an  argument  against  facets;  rather,   we  need  to  rethink  exactly  what  we  do  want  our  metadata  to  do.  To  simply  take  up  space  on  the   facets  column  does  not  serve  any  purpose.  It  is  also  clear  that  we  need  to  systematically  monitor   the  use  of  facets,  and  for  this  we  need  analytics.  At  this  point,  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to   know  whether  facets  have  been  used  for  searches  and,  if  so,  which  facets  have  been  used.  Until  we   routinely  gather  this  sort  of  data,  we  will  not  have  the  appropriate  data  to  make  suitable  decisions   about  facets  and  their  use.   1.     Language—This  facet  represents  the  language  (both  written  and  spoken  content)  of   the  work.  While  the  term  language  is  understood  by  users,  we  need  to  consider   whether  the  word  alone  triggers  a  response.  Since  users  most  likely  want  only  English,   the  facet  label  can  ask  that  question,  and  then  the  selection  of  language  choices  will   appear,  making  it  clear  that  there  are  other  choices  as  well.     A  question  like  “do  you  want  English  only?”  will  then  elicit  a  response  to  narrow  the   results  by  language.  With  the  majority  of  the  materials  in  English,  this  may  be  moot,  but   it  does  encourage  the  searcher  to  think  about  the  language.   The  discovery  layer  adds  the  facet  term  “undetermined”  when  the  provided  metadata   does  not  specify  the  language  of  a  work.  In  a  sense,  the  metadata  has  holes  and  a  user   that  is  searching  for  a  particular  language  will  inadvertently  exclude  relevant  search   results  if  the  facet  is  used  too  soon  to  filter  out  undesired  languages.  We  recommend   that  filtering  by  language  should  be  used  only  as  necessary  and  only  when   overwhelmed  by  a  large  number  of  unwanted  languages.     2.     Publisher—This  facet  represents  the  entity  or  the  issuer  of  a  published  work.  This   applies  across  both  serial  and  nonserial  materials.  The  user  most  likely  understands   this  term.  But  the  question  is,  what  is  the  value  of  this  facet?  While  we  do  have  the     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           86   metadata  for  this,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  the  circumstances  under  which  one  will   actually  limit  a  search  by  the  publisher.  We  suggest  not  displaying  this  facet.   3.     Publication—This  facet  represents  the  source  title  of  the  published  work,  such  as  a   journal,  trade  magazine,  or  newspaper.  This  applies  primarily  to  articles,  book  reviews,   columns,  etc.,  and  not  to  publications  like  books,  sound  recordings,  and  videos.  The   user  must  be  made  aware  that  the  use  of  this  facet  should  be  used  for  serial-­‐type   materials  only.  Alternatives  to  “publication”  can  be  “article  source.”  This  facet  answers   the  implicit  search  query  and  could  be  a  pop-­‐up  window:  “What  journal  or  magazine   are  you  looking  for?”   4.     Content  providers—This  is  a  very  problematic  facet.  It  is  not  difficult  to  surmise  that   most  users  when  encountering  this  term  would  not  know  what  it  means  and,  more   significantly,  why  it  is  important.  In  fact,  the  term  itself  is  not  accurate—another   interesting  issue  that  must  be  dealt  with.  The  “content  providers”  may  not  be  the   actual  providers  of  content  but  rather  providers  of  the  metadata  content,  which  is   something  altogether  different.  For  example,  Emerald  is  the  actual  content  provider  for   an  article,  yet  a  different  provider,  the  metadata  provider,  is  listed  as   the  content  provider.  A  suggested  replacement  for  this  term  is  “sources.”  Wordings  for   a  pop-­‐up  window  could  be,  “To  narrow  your  search,  choose  from  a  source  that  most   closely  matches  your  topic.  The  sources  are  from  different  types  of  subject  databases.”     5.     Subject—The  use  of  the  facet  “subject”  may  seem  to  be  obvious,  yet,  upon  closer   inspection,  the  nature  of  this  facet  is  problematic.  What  is  the  cognitive  connection   between  first  doing  a  keyword  search  and  then  seeing  on  the  lefthand  side  the  facet   label  “subject?”  Why  should  a  user  assume  he  or  she  should  now  click  on  a  link  called   “subject,”  since  they  just  finished  doing  a  subject  search?  We  need  to  provide  the   context  for  an  action  that  takes  into  account  the  most  common  experience  of  the  user.   Using  the  term  “topic”  rather  than  “subject”  would  allow  us  to  offer  a  term  that  is  more   congruent  with  the  familiar  vocabulary  of  a  student’s  classroom  experience  because   generally  students  are  directed  to  research  topics.     A  University  of  Washington  Libraries  usability  study  from  the  prediscovery  era  (2004)  found  that   users  preferred  “browse  subjects”  to  “by  subject.”  37  Here  we  see  the  presence  of  a  verb  specifying   an  action.  The  significant  finding  for  our  purposes  from  this  earlier  study  is  the  fact  that  users   found  the  phrase  with  a  verb  more  meaningful  than  the  phrase  with  a  preposition.  We  suggest   making  it  clear  that  the  user  can  further  refine  the  search  by  the  suggested  subjects  that  are  listed   in  the  facets  by  using  the  phrase  “narrow  your  topic”  or  “further  narrow  your  topic.”  The  pop-­‐up   window  could  say,  “To  narrow  your  search,  choose  from  this  list  of  possible  topics  that  most   closely  match  your  search  terms.”     WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   87   The  conclusion  reached  by  the  University  of  Arizona  study  is  even  more  relevant  for  the  discovery   layer  interface:  “We  learned  that  if  students  have  no  idea  why  or  when  they  should  use  an  index,   they  will  not  choose  a  link  labeled  index,  no  matter  how  well  designed  the  web  page  is.”38  This  is   the  situation  with  facet  labels.  If  they  are  not  intelligible,  or  at  least  provoke  some  response  to  a   question  posed,  they  will  be  ignored,  and  if  ignored,  their  potential  value  goes  completely  unused.     CONCLUSION   E-­‐commerce  has  concluded,  in  the  face  of  overwhelmingly  positive  evidence,  that  facets  are  an   essential  aspect  of  the  successful  (i.e.,  profitable)  user  experience  and  that  they  have  been  almost   universally  adopted  by  companies  who  sell  products,  have  very  large  product  lines,  and  need  to   lead  their  customer  to  exactly  the  type  of  product  they  want.  In  our  discovery  layers,  we  also  need   to  develop  the  kinds  of  features  that  promote  the  effective  use  of  the  resources  we  offer  our   academic  users,  and  build  in,  where  feasible,  appropriate  features.  Modifications  can  and  should   be  made  as  libraries  work  with  their  discovery-­‐services  vendor  to  rationalize  an  interface  page   that  should  include  natural  language,  easily  understandable  navigation,  logical  taxonomic  ordering   of  the  facets,  etc.  In  essence,  both  product  searches  and  academic  information  searches  present   the  same  scenario:  we  begin  with  an  information  need,  a  retrieval  system,  and  the  need  to  achieve   recall,  precision,  and  relevance.     Discovery  services  allow  for  an  information  search  to  be  carried  out  essentially  as  a  Google  search   while  limiting  the  scope  of  facets  to  assistance  in  refining  it.  We  can  be  confident  that  our  users,   many  (or  even  most)  of  whom  also  use  e-­‐commerce  faceted  search  sites,  are  able  to  recognize  a   similar  search  interface.  Thus  we  are  dealing  with  an  important  design  issue.  But  to  what  extent   do  our  users  take  advantage  of  faceted  searches?  As  it  stands  at  this  writing,  the  link  between  the   facets  and  their  corresponding  content  “documents”  (articles  or  video)  is  simply  not  clear.  The   characteristics  of  our  discoverable  objects  must  be  tied  in  with  what  a  user  would  be  likely  to   understand.   We  need  analytics  capable  of  supplying  this  sort  of  critical  user-­‐experience  information.  It  may  be   that  we  are  perhaps  dealing  with  conflicting  mental  models  about  information  searching.  Students   and  other  members  of  the  academic  community  may  simply  not  be  adequately  cognizant  of  the   implicit  faceted  nature  of  their  query,  and  this  becomes  a  new  opportunity  for  improvements  in   our  approach  to  user  instruction.     It  is  clear  that  libraries  and  vendors  need  to  work  together  to  properly  evaluate  the  facet  labels  if   facets  are  to  begin  to  achieve  their  potential  as  an  essential  search  function.  Disheartening   statements  to  the  effect  that  no  one  uses  them,  or  that  the  discovery  system  itself  is  already   branded  a  failure,  demonstrates  that  the  discovery  layer,  while  clearly  a  powerful  tool  for   integrating  a  range  of  accessible  resource,  is  still  in  its  infancy.  Our  purpose  in  this  paper  was  to   draw  attention  to  both  the  proven  value  of  faceted  navigation  and  the  ongoing  problem  of     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           88   confusing  or  inadequately  understood  library  terminology  that  is  presently  hindering  what  should   be  a  powerful  tool  in  our  information  discovery  warehouse.   REFERENCES     1.     Google  is  ranked  number  1  according  to  Alexa,  a  traffic-­‐ranking  website.  “The  top  500  sites  on   the  web,”  Alexa,  accessed  May  9,  2014,  http://www.alexa.com/topsites.   2.     Irene  Lopatovska,  Megan  R.  Fenton  and  Sara  Campot,  “Examining  Preferences  for  Search   Engines  and  Their  Effects  on  Information  Behavior,”  Proceedings  of  the  American  Society  for   Information  Science  &  Technology  49,  no.  1  (2012):  1–11.   3.     Betsy  Sparrow,  Jenny  Liu  and  Daniel  M.  Wegner,  “Google  Effects  on  Memory:  Cognitive   Consequences  of  Having  Information  at  Our  Fingertips,”  Science  333,  no.  6043  (2011):  776–78;   Daniel  M.  Wegner  and  Adrian  F.  Ward,  “How  Google  Is  Changing  Your  Brain,”  Scientific   American  309,  no.  6  (2013):  58–61;  Robin  Marantz  Henig  and  Samantha  Henig,   Twentysomething:  Why  do  Young  Adults  Seem  Stuck?  (New  York:  Hudson  Street,  2012),  139– 43;  Matti  Näsi  and  Leena  Koivusilta,  “Internet  and  Everyday  Life:  The  Perceived  Implications   of  Internet  Use  on  Memory  and  Ability  to  Concentrate,”  Cyberpsychology,  Behavior,  and  Social   Networking  16,  no.  2  (2013):  88–93.   4.     Alison  J.  Head,  Learning  the  Ropes:  How  Freshmen  Conduct  Course  Research  Once  They  Enter   College  (Project  Information  Literacy,  December  5,  2013),   http://projectinfolit.org/images/pdfs/pil_2013_freshmenstudy_fullreport.pdf.   5.   Ibid.  2.   6.     Joshua  Steimle,  “What  Does  SEO  Cost?  [Infographic],”  Forbes,  September  12,  2013,   http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2013/09/12/what-­‐does-­‐seo-­‐cost-­‐infographic/.   7.     Frank  Scharnell,  “Guide  to  eCommerce  Facets,  Filters  and  Catelgories,”  YouMoz  (blog),  April   30,  2013,  http://moz.com/ugc/guide-­‐to-­‐ecommerce-­‐facets-­‐filters-­‐and-­‐categories   8.     Vanda  Broughton,  “Meccano,  Molecules,  and  the  Organization  of  Knowledge:  The  Continuing   Contribution  of  S.  R.  Ranganathan”  (presentation,  International  Society  for  Knowledge   Organization  UK  chapter,  London,  November  5,  2007),  2,   http://www.iskouk.org/presentations/vanda_broughton.pdf.   9.     Jody  Condit  Fagan,  “Discovery  Tools  and  Information  Literacy,”  Journal  of  Web  Librarianship  5,   no.  3  (2011):  171–78.   10.    Sarah  Ramdeen  and  Bradley  M.  Hemminger,  “A  Tale  of  Two  Interfaces:  How  Facets  Affect  the   Library  Catalog  Search,”  Journal  of  the  American  Society  for  Information  Science  &  Technology   63  (2012):  702–15.     WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   89     11.    Amy  F.  Fyn,  Vera  Lux  and  Robert  J.  Snyder,  “Reflections  on  Teaching  and  Tweaking  a   Discovery  Layer,”  Reference  Services  Review  41,  no.  1  (2013):  113–24.  See  also  the  various   presentations  at  recent  LOEX  conferences.   12.    William  Badke,  “Pushing  a  Big  Rock  Up  a  Hill  All  Day:  Promoting  Information  Literacy  Skills,”   Online  Searcher  37,  no.  6  (2013):  67.   13.    See  the  following  blog  entry  on  library  jargon,  which  makes  observations  on  terms  such  as   “periodicals”  and  “databases”:  “Periodicals  and  Other  Library  Jargon,”  Mr.  Library  Dude  (blog),   March  18,  2011,  http://mrlibrarydude.wordpress.com/tag/library-­‐jargon/.  This  presentation   on  library  jargon  is  a  very  helpful  contribution  to  the  discussion:  Mark  Aaron  Polger,  “Re-­‐ thinking  Library  Jargon:  Maintaining  Consistency  and  Using  Plain  Language,”  (slideshow   presentation,  February  5,  2011),  http://www.slideshare.net/markaaronpolger/library-­‐ jargon-­‐newestjan2010feb2010-­‐6815908.     14.    We  are  referring  here  to  systems  such  as  EBSCO  EDS,  ProQuest  Summon,  Ex  Libris  Primo.   15.    Beth  Thomsett-­‐Scott  and  Patricia  E.  Reese,  “Academic  Libraries  and  Discovery  Tools:  A  Survey   of  the  Literature,”  College  &  Undergraduate  Libraries  19,  no.  2–4  (2012):  123–43;  Helen   Dunford,  review  of  Planning  and  Implementing  Resource  Discovery  Tools  in  Academic  Libraries,   by  Mary  Pagliero  Popp  and  Diane  Dallis,  The  Australian  Library  Journal  62,  no.  2  (2013):  175– 76.   16.    Sarah  Ramdeen  and  Bradley  M.  Hemminger,  “A  Tale  of  Two  Interfaces:  How  Facets  Affect  the   Library  Catalog  Search,”  Journal  of  the  American  Society  for  Information  Science  &  Technology   63  (2012):  713;  Kathleen  Bauer  and  Alice  Peterson-­‐Hart,  “Does  Faceted  Display  in  a  Library   Catalog  Increase  Use  of  Subject  Headings?,”  Library  Hi  Tech  30,  no.  2  (2012):  354;  Jody  Condit   Fagan,  “Usability  Studies  of  Faceted  Browsing:  A  Literature  Review,”  Information  Technology  &   Libraries  29,  no.  2  (2010):  62,  http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ital.v29i2.3144.   17.    William  F.  Chickering  and  Sharon  Q.  Yang,  “Evaluation  and  Comparison  of  Discovery  Tools:  An   Update,”  Information  Technology  &  Libraries  33,  no.  2  (2014),   http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ital.v33i2.3471.   18.    Vanda  Broughton,  “The  Need  for  a  Faceted  Classification  as  the  Basis  of  All  Methods  of   Information  Retrieval,”  Aslib  Proceedings  58,  no.  1/2  (2006):  49–72.   19.    Leonard  Will,  “Rigorous  Facet  Analysis  as  the  Basis  for  Constructing  Knowledge  Organization   Systems  (KOS)  of  All  Kinds”  (paper  presented  at  2013  ISKO  UK  Conference,  London,  July  8–9,   2013):  4,  http://www.iskouk.org/conf2013/papers/WillPaper.pdf.   20.    Marti  A.  Hearst,  “Design  Recommendations  for  Hierarchical  Faceted  Search  Interfaces,”  in   Proceedings  of  the  ACM  SIGIR  Workshop  on  Faceted  Search  (2006),   http://flamenco.sims.berkeley.edu/papers/faceted-­‐workshop06.pdf.     INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  AND  LIBRARIES  |  JUNE  2015           90     21.    Kathryn  La  Barre,  “Traditions  of  Facet  Theory,  or  a  Garden  of  Forking  Paths?,”  in  Facets  of   Knowledge  Organization:  Proceedings  of  the  ISKO  UK  Second  Biennial  Conference,  4th–5th  July,   2011,  London  (Bingley,  UK  :  Emerald,  2012),  96.   22.    Barre,  “Traditions  of  Facet  Theory,  or  a  Garden  of  Forking  Paths?,”  98.   23.    Frank  Scharnell,  “Guide  to  eCommerce  Facets,  Filters  and  Categories.”   24.    Andrew  D.  Asher,  Lynda  M.  Duke,  and  Suzanne  Wilson,  “Paths  of  Discovery:  Comparing  the   Search  effectiveness  of  EBSCO  Discovery  Service,  Summon,  Google  Scholar,  and  Conventional   Library  Resources,”  College  &  Research  Libraries  74,  no.  5  (2013):  464–88.     25.    Saverio  Perugini,  “Personalization  by  Website  Transformation:  Theory  and  Practice,”   Information  Processing  &  Management  46,  no.  3  (2010):  284;  Elizabeth,  F.  Churchill,  “Putting   the  Person  Back  into  Personalization,”  Elizabeth  F.  Churchill  (blog),  July  24,  2013,   http://elizabethchurchill.com/uncategorized/putting-­‐the-­‐person-­‐back-­‐into-­‐personalization/.   26.    Churchill,  “Putting  the  Person  Back  into  Personalization.”   27.    Celia  Thompson,  Kathleen  Gray,  and  Hyejeong  Kim,  “How  Social  are  Social  Media  Technologies   (SMTs)?  A  Linguistic  Analysis  of  University  Students’  Experiences  of  Using  SMTs  for  Learning,”   The  Internet  &  Higher  Education  21  (2014):  31–40,   http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.12.001.   28.    “Banner  Blindness  Studies,”  BannerBlindness.org,  accessed  April  7,  2014,   http://bannerblindness.org/banner-­‐blindness-­‐studies/.   29.    Melissa  Gross  and  Don  Latham,  “Undergraduate  Perceptions  of  Information  Literacy:  Defining,   Attaining,  and  Self-­‐Assessing  Skills,”  College  &  Research  Libraries  70,  no.  4  (2009):  336–50.   30.    See  the  section  “Most  internet  users  say  they  do  not  know  how  to  limit  the  information  that  is   collected  about  them  by  a  website,”  Pew  Report  2012,   http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/09/main-­‐findings-­‐11/#most-­‐internet-­‐users-­‐say-­‐ they-­‐do-­‐not-­‐know-­‐how-­‐to-­‐limit-­‐the-­‐information-­‐that-­‐is-­‐collected-­‐about-­‐them-­‐by-­‐a-­‐website.   31.    Chris  Jasek,  “How  to  Design  Library  Websites  to  Maximize  Usability,”  Library   Connect,  Pamphlet  5  (2007):  4,   http://libraryconnectarchive.elsevier.com/lcp/0502/lcp0502.pdf.  See  also  the  results   compiled  in  this  paper  of  fifty-­‐one  intelligibility  studies,  John  Kupersmith,  “Library  Terms  that   Users  Understand”  (University  of  California,  2012),   http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qq499w7.   32.    Paige  Alfonzo,  “My  Library  Usability  Study  Stage  1,”  Librarian  Enumerations  (blog),  June  19,   2013,  http://librarianenumerations.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/library-­‐usability-­‐study/.   33.    “Discussing  Discovery  Services:  What's  Working,  What’s  Not  and  What’s  Next?”  (discussion   forum,  ALA  2014  Annual  Conference,  Las  Vegas,  Nevada,  June  29,  2014).       WHAT’S  IN  A  WORD?  RETHINKING  FACET  HEADINGS  IN  A  DISCOVERY  SERVICE  |  NELSON  AND  TURNEY   doi:  10.6017/ital.v34i2.5629   91     34.    Susan  Avery  and  Lisa  Janicke  Hinchliffe,  “Hopes,  Impressions,  and  Reality:  Is  a  Discovery  Layer   the  Answer?”  (program,  LOEX  2014  Annual  Conference,  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  May  8–10,   2014),   http://www.loexconference.org/2014/presentations/'LOEX2014_'Hopes%20Impressions%2 0and%20Reality-­‐AveryHinchliffe.pdf.   35.    Kupersmith,  “Library  Terms  that  Users  Understand.”   36.    We  are  taking  our  examples  from  EBSCO  EDS  with  which  we  are  most  familiar.  The  issues   discussed  are  common  to  all  discovery  systems.     37.    Kupersmith,  “Library  Terms  that  Users  Understand.”   38.    Ruth  Dickstein  and  Vicki  Mills,  “Usability  Testing  at  the  University  of  Arizona  Library:  How  to   Let  the  Users  in  on  the  Design,”  Information  Technology  and  Libraries  19,  no.  3  (2000):  144–51.