Alex said, "Most of what we do is running around buying adaptors for people instead of creating a new plug that fits the square." My concern about the type of user-driven design that you seem to be advocating is that it will perpetuate our relying on adapters rather than changing the plug. I'm also concerned that a plug isn't what the user needs, but since that's what we started with, and we have a prototype of the next generation one, that we continue to focus on developing plugs.
Alex said, "But how are we to design for them if we don't listen to them, letting them telling us how to do our jobs?" I think you misunderstand me. I think listening to users is critically important. But I don't think they should tell us how to do our jobs. I think they should tell us how they want to do their tasks. Then, I think that the library needs to understand how it fits into the user's tasks. Are we building a plug for a hole? Maybe we are building a watering can for their garden?
Alex:
Or, it *could* mean that we add it [tags] because they ask for it.
Information knowledge and management is part of our culture _as_well_
as being a property of the systems we design. Some times the users do
indeed know best.
So do we add it because they are asking for it, or do we add it because information knowledge and management is part of our culture, part of our job? But do tags really fit into that culture/job? I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that we should store and preserve tags as we would any other information? I think that is open to debate and would depend on the library and its mission.
As for the story about the blue background, I think it illustrates exactly what I am saying. User input is critical, but our job is to use our expertise to apply it. The important lesson from the story is that there was an issue with the display of the fingerprints. The users didn't know the exact solution, they knew there was a problem. Through research you were able to solve the problem and optimize the clarity of the display for them.
I want to say it again, because I think I am being misunderstood, that I think user input is critical. In fact, I don't think you can design without it. And you need to get in unfiltered because we all have our biases. I also think that once you are in prototyping, wireframes phase, you are pretty much out of the design phase. You already have the idea of what it is you are designing and you end up making/buying adapters for a plug to fit a hole that may not even exist. From there, user input will impact the design less and less the later it gets into the process. Understanding our users and what they are trying to accomplish in the library, and in other areas of their lives that the library could help with, then using our expertise to design systems to meet those goals is a more effective way to center our design around our users. The feedback shouldn't stop there. We still need to test the usability and we need to continue to understand our users to know if we are
still meeting their needs. I don't think this is the same as adding tags because they asked for it.
----- Original Message ----
From: Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM>
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 8:02:22 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] What has LIS learned?
On 5/4/07, Ron Peterson <ronpeterson39401_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> We, as libraries and librarians, are supposed to be the experts in connecting
> people to information. I think it is a mistake to turn that responsibility over to
> the users, to let them tell us how we should do our jobs.
I'm not sure that's what has been suggested. I think what's been
missing in our "expert connecting ways" is that the information round
plug don't always fit into the square user hole. Most of what we do is
running around buying adaptors for people instead of creating a new
plug that fits the square.
> Not that we shouldn't get their feedback, formally and informally. We have
> a lot to learn from our users; how they find information, how they use
> information, how they are creating information, how they are communicating,
> what information they are looking for, etc., but it is up to us to develop the
> means for them to accomplish those goals.
But how are we to design for them if we don't listen to them, letting
them telling us how to do our jobs? Remember that our job description
basically says "do what we can to help users do what they want to do."
> That doesn't mean adding tags because they are asking for it, but it may
> mean adding tags because it helps them find the information they need.
Or, it *could* mean that we add it because they ask for it.
Information knowlegde and management is part of our culture _as_well_
as being a property of the systems we design. Some times the users do
indeed know best.
Hey, I've actually got a real story to go with that last paragraph;
back when I was doing digital motion detection and digital fingerprint
systems (hmmm, 15 years ago?), a lot of our users asked if we could
display fingerprints with a blue background around the image. This was
ignored for some time, because we thought it was a vanity. Users may
or may not have known that in fact the human eye have different
sharpness perception depending on the mean hue and color of what is
being observed, but they had found out through preference that indeed
blue (and a more specific kind of blue, through research) makes the
rest of what you see sharper. And as soon as we found out how stupid
we had been in ignoring this vanity, the first systems with blue
background saw a huge increase in both revenue (there weren't many
competitors :) and user satisfaction. A simple, silly little color
preference can in fact be a crucial point to determine success or
failure. The world is complex, indeed.
Regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchymist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 08:18:05 EDT