Maybe, what we need are two interfaces one labeled "Get a fish" and the
other labeled "Learn to fish".
There was a time when universities took the attitude that "freshmen"
came to them not knowing what they needed to know and that "sophomores"
knew less than they thought they knew. There is a place in education
for disabusing the student of misconceptions that stand in the way of
learning.
On the other hand, expert knowledge and skills often goes along with a
priesthood. The experts make it hard to join in ways that have nothing
to do with the expert knowledge gained. We want to teach our users, but
we don't want to send them of to get their MLS.
If we really want to do this right we would be designing interfaces that
are inviting and easy to use but also teach you as you use them. This
is hard, but not impossible. We need to separate out obstacles that
make things needlessly hard (e.g., you have to retype data obtained in
one system into another system to use both together). In other words,
let the computer do the menial, thoughtless part of the job. But don't
try to fool people that the machines can think for them. Yes people
love easy Google-style full text searches, but the evidence still is
that the vast majority of people don't know how to properly formulate a
full text search. We don't want to trap those people in an easy to use
land of "garbage in; garbage out".
Amazon.com has it easy. They know they've succeeded when a visit ends
in a sale. What do we have to measure when a visit ends in finding out
something? How does a successful research outcome translate into Web
activity? How do you measure a gain in wisdom or the broadening of
horizons?
Maybe we should ask not, "What does this interface do?", but "What does
this interface teach?"
Chris Gray
Systems Analyst
University of Waterloo Library
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Michael: " However, doing so will require that we resist the temptation
> to create the ideal OPAC for *librarians*, but instead focus on creating
> on OPAC that meets our *users'* search needs."
>
> Insofar as librarians ought to do everything possible to help users do a
> lot themselves, *I agree with all of this*. But at the same time, in
> the midst of it all, I bemoan the reference librarian's potential loss
> of specialized tools devised to treat the increasingly "rare condition"
> of the truly questioning, curious, "leather-foot journalist" researcher,
> scholar in this process.
>
> Years in the future, perhaps when people are even less curious about the
> past and the history of ideas then they are now, some thoughtful
> examiner of the world will read Thomas Mann and say, "Oh, the days when
> there were experts who actually could listen to one another - and work
> together (to some extent) to cooperatively build amazingly devised
> systems to help people who suspected they needed expert human help...
> it's a shame people did not realize their value... realize what they
> had" I think this is likely.
>
> In my mind, Karen Schneider's questions are still interesting... (and
> worth doing some major soul-searching about and taking action), but
> perhaps also reveal a certain shortsightedness.
>
> Regards,
> Nathan Rinne
> Media Cataloging Technician
> ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
> 11200 93rd Ave. North
> Maple Grove, MN. 55369
> Work phone: 763-391-7183
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Doran, Michael D
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:32 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] The problem with OPACs [was: New subject keyword
> search]
>
>
>> Selden Deemer wrote:
>>
>> Whatever the considerable benefits of browse displays (I
>> read, and took to heart Thomas Mann's comments), the fact
>> remains that, when I look at our search log stats, users (as
>> opposed to librarians) simply do NOT browse (and it's not for
>> lack of instruction).
>>
>
> I'm convinced that the underlying "problem" with our OPACs (from a
> usability perspective) is that they are sold once to librarians, rather
> than many times to end users. If each user was making an individual
> purchase decision, OPACs would have quickly evolved to meet their needs.
> I believe ILS vendors (who we often unfairly blame) are quite capable of
> producing an awesome OPAC. But the vendors are building OPACs to meet
> our (i.e. librarians) perceived needs, because vendors are smart and are
> in business to make money and they understand that *we* are the ones
> writing that big check every 10-15 years or so. As Selden points out,
> OPAC features that are important/essential to us, are often ones that
> our users could care less about, despite all our well-meaning
> instruction.
>
> And that is assuming that OPAC functionality/usability is even a prime
> consideration in the purchase decision of an ILS. Very often that's not
> the case, as acquisitions, cataloging, or circulation module features
> drive the decision and the OPAC is an afterthought. If we want to find
> out who's responsible for sucky OPACs, the first place we need to look
> is in the mirror [1].
>
> On the bright side, products like VUFind, Primo, AquaBrowser, and Endeca
> unbundle the OPAC from the ILS, giving us a chance to atone for past ILS
> purchase decisions (which can't easily be undone). One of the problems
> inherent in an ILS-bundled OPAC is that the 10-15 year (give or take)
> ILS replacement cycle does not allow for significant changes to what
> quickly becomes a calcified code base. I'm particularly excited about
> Andrew Nagy's recently released open-source OPAC; with VUFind, the
> library-land development community has a golden opportunity to craft an
> OPAC that genuinely meets our users needs. However, doing so will
> require that we resist the temptation to create the ideal OPAC for
> *librarians*, but instead focus on creating on OPAC that meets our
> *users'* search needs. I think that would be an OPAC that doesn't
> require instruction (however well-meaning) or require an initial search
> page that is 80% search tips.
>
> Just my opinion...
>
> -- Michael
>
> [1] Karen Schneider asks: "But the interesting questions are: Why don't
> online catalog vendors offer true search in the first place? and Why
> [don't we] demand it? Save the time of the reader!" I would answer that
> vendors don't offer it, and we don't demand it, because the ILS (OPAC)
> check-writers have other priorities.
> See: Karen Schneider, How OPACs Suck, Part 1
> http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevan
> ce-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html
>
> # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian
> # University of Texas at Arlington
> # 817-272-5326 office
> # 817-688-1926 mobile
> # doran_at_uta.edu
> # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/
>
Received on Thu Jul 26 2007 - 09:50:56 EDT