Libraries everywhere are screencasting – using software to record action on a computer desktop – to create tutorials on topics such as using a catalogue or searching in a database. Myriad screencasting software products exist, but the current heavyweights are Adobe Captivate and Camtasia by TechSmith. Both offer sophisticated features such as closed captioning, quizzing, and chapter divisions. These options allow libraries to align their tutorials with higher-learning information literacy outcomes and with accessibility guidelines.
At McMaster University’s Health Sciences library, I recently used Adobe Captivate 4 and Camtasia 7.1 to create online tutorials on searching medical databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL. While it’s an engaging and rewarding process, screencasting requires a significant amount of time – to plot a storyboard, record your on-screen actions, incorporate audio narration, add captions, call-outs, quizzes, and other features – and to edit, edit, edit. From start to finish, I’d say it takes a solid two weeks of focused work to create one tutorial.
Screencasting requires financial resources as well, with Captivate costing $299US and Camtasia $179US (educational pricing).
Given these significant investments of time and money, it can be frustrating when the interface of the database, catalogue, or other tool changes so markedly that your online tutorial is rendered obsolete. This happened to me after I’d spent a few weeks working on a Web of Science screencast, only to find out the database would soon be changing markedly. Wondering what other libraries do when faced with the problem of sustaining a commitment to screencasting, I posted an inquiry to the listserv for the Ontario Library and Information Technology Association (OLITA).
Judging by responses to this message, this appears to be a significant concern: most of the 20 respondents said they shared this challenge. There doesn’t seem to be a unified solution, but some themes did emerge:
1. Updating is unavoidable
Most of the respondents who said they had to recreate tutorials after interface changes, rebranding, or other alterations described it as a painful and time-consuming necessity. Many wished there were options other than re-recording.
“We agree that the updating of these is extremely time-consuming and not a sustainable practice.”
Others concluded that the interactivity provided by screencasting was worth the extra effort:
“It does take time to update the content of screencast tutorials, but we would need to update instructions on our web pages in any case. If we want good online self-help for our users, we need to keep up to date and that does take time but it is what we are supposed to be doing.”
2. Screencast smarter
a. Restrict the number of screencasting tutorials and/or look for ways to streamline the process
b. Limit the amount of detail in a screencast to save time on future updates: teach concepts, not specifics, and include more detail in written instructions
c. Plan carefully to eliminate unnecessary retakes
3. Try alternatives to screencasting
a. Create text documents incorporating screenshots of the database or website – these are easier to change, but not interactive and do not present opportunities for active learning
b. Create screenshots within PowerPoint and import to screencasting software; then add audio, captioning, quizzing, and other sophisticated features
c. Use a less-intensive screen recording tool, such as Jing, for “quick-and-dirty” screencasts; a great solution for quick interventions, however the limitations of Jing do not allow for active learning (quizzing) or accessibility features, such as closed captioning
4. Use vendors’ tutorials
Many information providers, such as EBSCO, create their own tutorials which can be linked from a library’s website.
“We try NOT to build in-house tutorials for databases. Most database vendors do a great job of making their own.”
There doesn’t appear to be one readily identifiable solution to the problems involved in maintaining up-to-date tutorials. Personally, I’m tempted to try solution 3b: creating screenshots of the interface, inserting into PowerPoint slides, and then using Camtasia/Captivate to add features such as audio, captioning, and quizzing. This should speed up the production process as it will be faster to grab screenshots than to actually record a demo.
I’m also wondering if a collaborative approach might work: it appears that many libraries are independently investing time creating the same kind of tutorials as their counterparts. If it was possible to harness and direct these efforts, the time and expense of these projects could be shared across a consortium.
There are at least two such initiatives already underway:
• ANTS: the Animated Tutorial Sharing Project – ants.wetpaint.com
Founded by the Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries, ANTS has created a list of priority tutorial projects and offers a collection of completed tutorials which can be freely shared and mounted by any institution.
• MERLOT: Multimedia Resource for Education and Online Teaching – merlot.org
Based at California State University, this is a collection of free, peer-reviewed learning resources designed for higher education.
Though the products of these organizations could be useful, it can be time-consuming to search for and screen potential tutorials to suit individual library’s needs. Perhaps there would be benefits of creating an “Ontario-grown” coalition around screencasting and online tutorials. In addition to brainstorming alternatives to screencasting, the group could outline shared priorities, determine what content is already available, and plan for a rotating schedule of tutorial creation among member institutions. If a provincial initiative is too broad and unworkable, smaller partnerships – for example, between universities with health sciences faculties – might be more effective.
Elizabeth Yates is Special Projects Assistant at McMaster University Health Sciences Library. yatese@mcmaster.ca
