Aren't there two aspects to this? The first being the ability for users to find out what exists, and the second being their ability to identify where it is located in the physical world, or where they can obtain it if it exists in the virtual?
I would see that for the first, we want them to be able to search everything that they can, as easily and intuitively as possible, and preferably by going to as few places as possible. For the second, the sort of clustering of locations etc that have been suggested already sound ideal - which depend on knowing at a minimum where the searcher is located.
Carolyn
________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Grace Wiersma
Sent: Fri 30/06/2006 11:43 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Finding your library catalogue via Google - was Vendors, etc. (was "What LibraryThing means to OPACs")
Quoting Karen Coyle:
>>What do we intend when we open our catalog to users who are searching the
web (implying searching
materials that are resolvable through the search engine)?
The catalog was opened to remote users with the first generation of Web
OPACS. Aren't the same assumptions still applicable? Surely we don't want to
go backward to a "gated community" (authentication required) where only
certain users are allowed to know what's in the library. Surely we don't
want to go toward a "smart" (dumbed-down) search that prevents users from
seeing things that they can't directly touch. Surely we want to enable
researchers to figure out what library they absolutely need to visit. Surely
enabling people to actually get to the maximum stuff possible assumes all of
the above.
*All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.*
(Attributed on the Web to Lord Acton)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lord_Acton
My two cents (I'm still here).
Grace Wiersma
Cataloging & Metadata Services, MIT Libraries
gwiersma_at_mit.edu
(781) 643-8808
Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 09:32:09 EDT