I agree with all the other points you made, but....
Monday, October 2, 2006, 10:50:40 AM, you wrote:
KGS> * Using new tools to get mileage out of legacy data is cheaper, faster, and
KGS> more effective than attempting to optimize or standardize legacy data.
KGS> * Interfaces need to be simple, consistent, and pervasive.
These two seem mutually contradictory. In the first case, you seem to
say that we can and should work with what we have instead of trying to
standardize. Absolutely no argument with that. Many of us have gone
around on that one over the last several decades as we've been
involved with changing records due to changes in cataloging rules,
reclassing from DDC to LC, and so forth. I'm not saying that all of
that is/was bad, but it is a bottomless pit.
The second one will never happen. Just as catalogers will fuss
forever about angels on the head of a pin, or the interpretation of
some obscure rule, users, web designers, and administrators will fuss
forever about what the "best interface" is. Pick a vendor's catalog
system and see if you can find any two libraries that have implemented
the interface in the same way. Good luck in that search. None of us
are ever happy with "plain vanilla", as we all think that our ideas
and styles are the best. We've all seen the same thing in changes in
design of other interfaces, including all of our websites.
I think that on both we have to give up on the standardization, UNLESS
we all see that the implementation at XYZ is so wonderful that we all
spontaneously change to it due to its intrinsic brilliance and
usability. I don't expect to see that in this lifetime, if ever.
dan
--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan_at_RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com The Road Goes On Forever....
Received on Mon Oct 02 2006 - 13:27:44 EDT