>>Believe it or not, patrons have come up to me
>>at the desk and shown me a System number,
>>ISBN, or OCLC number. It always blows me away.
>>Are you suggesting they not be able to search that?
Not at all, Hank... But you could place some of the less frequently used
search indexes under your "Advanced" search page.
- I agree, and would be more than happy to do that. But I am not in
charge.
>>I don't know about Subject, tracing, but I would
>>counter the argument that an unused index is a waste
>>of time by saying "How do you know if you don't try?".
What do your search logs say? If very few users are employing certain
search types, I'd at least start to wonder if it's worth including that
type of search as an option. Otherwise, why not include every
conceivable type of search?
- Our search logs are pretty amazing. I believe the lowest used search
was used a little over 350 times in the last year. I believe that we
were limited by our system to how many indexes they would build. We did
extensive USER TESTING to determine which would be most used. The only
library staff used in the testing were a few student staff in the
pre-testing phase where we were trying to determine if the questionnaire
made sense.
>>Besides, I am a user.
And you're a librarian. I think we need to look at our services from
the point of view of somebody who has very little experience with
controlled vocabulary, complex boolean searches, etc.
- Can't we also help those with more knowledge? I know, I know, thats
what the advanced search is for.
>>WAY too many choices is what I see on my Google results
>>screen ... and isn't that what I am always being told
>>is the standard of excellence?
Google's relevance ranking works pretty well most of the time. I've
heard many make issue of the fact that a search, say on "hurricane",
turns up 53 million hits. But, the third result is a link to the
National Hurricane Center. Not bad... But I wouldn't go so far as to
call it a standard of excellence.
- I agree with you more than you may think.
>>I disagree that "The time it takes for a user to make
>>a choice is a function of the number of available choices."
That's a fairly well-established usability principle.
- There are many well-established principals that many people don't
agree with. I reserve the right to disagree. Many well-established
principals are eventually disproved.
>>because in my experience, over 20 years worth of it,
>>library patrons tend to use the first thing they see
>>that can possibly work for them. I also find that
>>once someone finds something that works for them,
>>they stick with it and don't bother exploring the
>>other choices.
Same here (but only about 15 years experience). There's a huge body of
literature to support that notion that library users, even very serious
researchers, employ the principle of least effort. They also muddle
through -- if something works for them, they persist even though their
method may not be the best or most efficient.
- I will reiterate. We probably agree more than we disagree. I have a
high degree of respect for my colleagues inside and outside of the
library world, but I am always trying to find better ways of doing
things. I believe USER EDUCATION is an integral part of our job BECAUSE
of human nature to employ the principal of least effort. I assure every
patron they are NOT stupid and that RESEARCH IS HARD.
- I threw out the 30% comment previously. It came out of my thoughts
and if you spoke to me in person you would probably hear me say 35%. My
wife, also a Librarian, suggested 30% based on her experience as an
educational specialist. If I ever become convinced that a system works
well for 25% of the people I assure you I will raise my hopes to 40% and
won't stop until we reach 100%.
- I have seen so much improvement library systems in my lifetime that I
can neither truly believe more is not obtainable. And by nature I
cannot strive for less than perfection. Man of La Macha is one of my
favorite plays.
- Hank
Tony McMullen
Systems Librarian
Reeves Memorial Library
Seton Hill University
1 Seton Hill Drive
Greensburg, PA 15601
(724)830-4616
FAX: 724-838-4203
mcmullen_at_setonhill.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Hank Young
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:52 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Our Workflow Works against us Was: [NGC4LIB]
user-centered design
When I said the display was not overly busy I meant that the visibly
choices without clicking buttons is pretty minimalist AND gives 2
primary options for searching, which I see as a bonus.
Believe it or not, patrons have come up to me at the desk and shown me a
System number, ISBN, or OCLC number. It always blows me away. Are you
suggesting they not be able to search that? If so, that contributes to
the failure of the library to provide service.
It is also helpful for the staff who LIKE to see what their work looks
like in the public mode so they can see that it MAKES SENSE. As a
former accountant it is easier and faster for me to do a number search,
so I would be one of the people who would not like to see the number
searches go away. Besides, I am a user.
We put the Staff indexes at the bottom because we thought no one would
see them there. Subject, Form/Genre is often used by our researchers in
Special Collections. I don't know about Subject, tracing, but I would
counter the argument that an unused index is a waste of time by saying
"How do you know if you don't try?". How often are we told you have to
not fear to fail in order to succeed. If we fear an index will not be
used, how can it succeed.
WAY too many choices? That's why we have the most commonly used ones at
the top of the list. WAY too many choices is what I see on my Google
results screen ... and isn't that what I am always being told is the
standard of excellence? I disagree that "The time it takes for a user
to make a choice is a function of the number of available choices."
because in my experience, over 20 years worth of it, library patrons
tend to use the first thing they see that can possibly work for them. I
also find that once someone finds something that works for them, they
stick with it and don't bother exploring the other choices.
Then again, I still cook my own food from scratch most of the time
because I find the amount of time one spends doing any task greatly
increases the quality of the results. Most people greatly over-value
their time and consequently settle for lousy results.
- Hank
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of McMullen, Anthony
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:12 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Our Workflow Works against us Was: [NGC4LIB]
user-centered design
>>>Its not like our catalog display is overly busy.
>>>http://uf.aleph.fcla.edu/F
Why all of the "Staff Indexes" in the "Browse Organized Lists" search
mode? There are WAY too many choices in my opinion... The time it
takes for a user to make a choice is a function of the number of
available choices. You could easily eliminate many of the choices in
this menu (How many users actually search for "Subject, Form/Genre" or
"Subject, Tracing").
It doesn't surprise me that users fail to notice the Exact Phrase radio
button. It's very easy to miss these things even though they're
practically punching us in the nose. I think this has much to do with
the fact that we scan web pages as opposed to reading them.
Tony McMullen
Systems Librarian
Reeves Memorial Library
Seton Hill University
1 Seton Hill Drive
Greensburg, PA 15601
(724)830-4616
FAX: 724-838-4203
mcmullen_at_setonhill.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Hank Young
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:53 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Our Workflow Works against us Was: [NGC4LIB]
user-centered design
At the University of Florida we have 2 default settings, the first is
keyword anywhere and the second is "browse by organized list" with title
as the default.
Why? We were told that was what the users wanted by the public services
staff. The decision for this was left to the public services department
because our cataloging staff would never assume that the PUBLIC DISPLAY
would be decided by people who don't interact with the public. In the
staff mode we have several modules and we would assume that student
library staff would do their work from there.
Of course, for all the testing the catalog is still deemed to be a
failure for some odd reason. My experience on a public service point is
that it seems to be easy enough for people to figure it out when I turn
my screen towards them and hand them the keyboard. Usually when I point
out something that would be helpful (like the radio buttons that say
"Exact phrase? Yes No) they are embarrassed because it was spelled out
for them in plain sight but they just didn't bother to look at it.
Its not like our catalog display is overly busy.
http://uf.aleph.fcla.edu/F
- Hank Young
Cataloger and Public Services (the BEST combo!) University of Florida
Cataloging IS a public service
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Dan Lester
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:14 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Our Workflow Works against us Was: [NGC4LIB]
user-centered design
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernd T. Wunsch Bernd.T.Wunsch_at_NIAS.KU.DK
> Hi, I would say that one of our major problems (which we also >have
recognized) is how alot of how WE would like our user >experience to be,
has been centered around OUR own workflow. To >give you a few examples:
Here's an example I live with daily. Check out the default search at
http://catalog.boisestate.edu/ For those not bothering to check, it is
a title search. One of the reasons I've been told is that this is so
that the student assistants who do preorder searching can do their work
easily. It is also a convenience for some other staff in technical
services, although most of them use client software to do their work
instead of a web interface. There could be other reasons I'm not aware
of. That's nice, but for the vast majority of users, college students
who are used to Google and similar tools, it is dysfunctional.
For example, if you're a student searching for information about the
history of Idaho, and if you put in "history of idaho" (without the
quotes) you will get 14 hits, a small percentage of the works on the
subject in the library. But if you put in "history idaho" (without the
quotes), as you might in google or other search tools, the search fails,
since there are no titles with that sequence of two words. Other
examples abound.
If the user figures out that s/he should try a Basic Search instead of a
Quick Search, they'll get a default of the google-like, and probably
most used default in other library catalogs, of Keyword Anywhere.
Naturally that produces useful results, regardless of which of the above
examples is entered.
Those working at the reference desk generally immediately show the user
to go to a Basic Search. Fine, it "only takes an extra click" (if you
know to do it). But that's a lot more extra clicks than if some staff
had to change to a Known Title search.
Anyway, this rant has been heard by all of my colleagues before, and
maybe a change will be made some day. Or not. And my rant here isn't
any negative reflection on any of my colleagues, since differences of
opinion are healthy and valuable. This is just a continuing irritant to
me, particularly when working with users. After many years of life in
general and libraries in particular, I'm certainly familiar with not
always getting what I want or what I think is right. That's life.
dan
Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 12:09:58 EDT