On 5/31/07, Ian Corns <Ian.Corns_at_talis.com> wrote:
> I've been surprised at the direction for discussion on this topic, so
> I'm going to "try" to turn the boat a bit...
Good point, Ian. As I wrote an email detailing why I wouldn't want to
use this as a primary input device on a day to day basis, I realized
that that's not really the point. The value of the technology, as it
currently stands, is in two areas, I think:
Artistic -- there's a reason many artists work with tablets to
replicate the traditional drawing experience, and this is an extension
of that, though it's a bit out of scope for this list.
Kiosks -- this is where we would see this in a library. I'm not going
to catalog on one of those Surfaces, but patrons may interact with the
OPAC through one. (I'd still really really want a keyboard attached
as a secondary input. I hate typing on touch screens.)
In that light, things like clouds and facets become more attractive to
the user. Our OPAC (we're an Endeavor library) is really text-input
focused. There's no effective way to initiate a search without typing
something in. It doesn't need to be that way, though. And when we
think of the OPAC as a discovery tool for research, I think browsing
is more effective. We compensate by creating sophisticated searches
to account for the problems of a word search (be it keyword, subject,
or anything else). It's the same reason that we suggest patrons go up
into the stacks to look around. We know the typed in search is going
to miss stuff. So why be wed to it?
Luckily, the cutting edge of OPAC interfaces seems to be a move toward
alternatives to word searches, along with enhancements (spell check
anyone?) to them. The best of both worlds.
Mark Sandford
Special Formats Cataloger
William Paterson University
Received on Thu May 31 2007 - 06:54:47 EDT