> You know, if I never hear anybody mention Bush, Nelson or Ranganathan
> again I won't be sorry. Haven't we had an original idea in LibraryLand
> since these guys were around? You'll notice they're all guys, too.
>
> Mark Andrews
Mark, the following rant is not directed at you.
The "big thinkers" for me in the last five years have largely been female
(and tend to have "Karen" as a first name): Calhoun, Coyle, Markey, Hillman,
and the BSTF folks. Toss in some OCLC findings, some Tennant and so forth,
and that's my current theoretical basis.
However, there is something classically radical about Ranganathan. "Books
are for use" is the ultimate user-centered statement. I keep hearing
pushback on this list about designing from the user outward, and yet that is
what Ranganathan, Dewey, and the recent theorists emphasize. Dewey started
from *observed need,* not from finding a way to justify how things were
already done. Ranganthan's Colon Classification system was about making it
easier to find information. The recent papers about what's goofed up in
library classification practices are written from a powerfully user-centric
perspective, and fall in the tradition of Ranganathan et al.
I don't get tired of hearing Ranganathan invoked. I do get very weary of
hearing "yes, buts" every time someone raises the idea that we need to start
backwards from the user in redesigning information services. Yes, but it's
hard. Yes, but we've done so much to make MARC what it is today. Yes, but we
need multiple interfaces. Yes, but librarianship is vastly different from
anything else. Yes, but; yes, but; yes, but; that's the sound we'll be
making as we slide into professional obscurity.
Give me a clear, definitive user-centric statement any day.
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Wed May 02 2007 - 10:59:29 EDT