kgs_at_bluehighways.com writes:
>
>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.
You're being too modest -- I'd add Schneider to that list of influential Karens as well. Thanks for keeping us firmly focused on user-driven design as always.
Steve Watkins
CSU Monterey Bay Library
steve_watkins_at_csumb.edu
>
>
>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 - 13:01:16 EDT