Karen,
I definitely agree that browsing a long list on a computer can be difficult, but I don't think the problem is the clicking and scrolling issues. First, research has shown that people are not as reluctant to scroll as we believe (http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of). And while users don't want to click 20 times to find the heading they are looking for, the problem is more likely tied to not knowing that they will need to click twenty times, than the actual clicking. The real problem is the visual clues that are lacking and there is no reason the interface couldn't be designed to provide them. The comparison to Google is not a good one because the likelihood of getting a relevant hit goes down as you click from page to page, or at least the perception of the likelihood goes down. That would not be an issue in a dictionary catalog.
So we don't necessarily need to eliminate clicking and scrolling, just provide users with the appropriate clues to let them know if they need to scroll or where they should click. I don't have a good example in mind, but I don't see any reason it couldn't be done.
Ron
----- Original Message ----
From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_KCOYLE.NET>
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:54:24 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Google single search box combined with browse
Martha,
I think you have to look at the realities of the different physicalities
of card catalogs (where browsing originated) and the computer. The card
catalog is three-dimensional and doesn't require an "interface."
Basically, humans manipulate it with their hands, using their eyes as
guides. If you want to jump ahead you merely reach forward a few inches
and continue from that point. If you've gone too far you can very
quickly hop backwards some amount. The computer screen is
two-dimensional and has to have an artificial interface mediated with
the keyboard and mouse.
These are not insignificant differences. I don't know if we did any
studies in the card catalog that would describe a user's physical
behavior, but we know in the computer environment that people 1) often
fail to scroll, since scrolling means taking the mouse and positioning
the cursor in a fairly small area of the screen, then clicking and 2)
rarely view more than two screens before giving up. (Even on google,
apparently.) So browsing in the computer environment will be hindered by
its physicality. When I go into a browse in a large catalog I find that
I may have begun my search many screens from where I would like to be.
That is a deterrent, because I do not want to have to click "next
screen" 20 or more times (and I also have no visual clue or physical
ability that would allow me to jump to a better starting point).
Our solutions have to be matched to the technology we are employing.
There were solutions that worked well in the card catalog that may
appear very different to users when effected through a computer
connection. I personally have not seen a really good implementation of
an alphabetical browse that minimized scrolling and clicking and
maximized the user's navigational ability. We would need to develop one
in order to make your idea here feasible.
kc
Martha Yee wrote:
> I have always thought users of libraries were pretty smart, smart enough to
> be able to tell us whether they were doing a search for a known work or a
> search for works on a particular subject, thus enabling us to provide them
> with more precise searching. However, if most of you violently disagree
> (especially those of you who are fans of Google's single search box),
> perhaps a compromise could be reached by reviving what used to be called the
> "dictionary catalog," that is an A to Z listing of all headings (authors,
> works and subjects). In other words, if we could combine all browse (i.e.,
> headings) indexes into one (and include TITLES AND WORK HEADINGS, which have
> been left out in most systems), we could offer a keyword in heading search
> of that dictionary browse file in a single search box as the default
> beginning search (with a keyword in record search with faceted browse a la
> Endeca offered as a back-up if the user indicates dissatisfaction with the
> results of the initial search). The results of the dictionary browse would
> be a list of headings and see references labelled as to type, e.g.:
>
> (personal creator) [used for 100 (bib.), 700 (bib.), 400 (auth.)]
> (corporate/institutional creator) [used for 110 (bib.), 710 (bib.), 410
> (auth.)]
> (conference proceedings) [used for 111 (bib.), 711 (bib.), 411 (auth.)]
> (person as topic) [used for 600]
> (corporation/institution as topic) [used for 610]
> (conference or event as topic) [used for 611]
> (work) [used for 1XX/245 (bib.), 1XX/240 (bib.), 130 (bib. and authority),
> 730 02 (bib.), 430 (auth.), 4xx/$t subfield (auth.)]
> (title) [used for 24X (bib.), 740 (bib.)]
> (series title) [used for 440 (bib.), 830 (bib.), 130 series authority
> records]
> (topic) [used for 650/651 (bib.), 150/151 (auth.), 450/451 (auth.)]
> (genre/form) [used for 655 (bib.), 155 (auth.), 455 (auth.)]
>
> These labels could begin the process of educating users about our
> categories, so that they could conceivably use them in more complex boolean
> searching. The results screen should also offer a prominent hot link to be
> used "if these results are not yet satisfactory" or some such language
> (which, as stated above, would re-do the search as a keyword in record
> search with facetted browsing display a la Endeca).
>
> When any given heading is chosen from the dictionary browse, the user should
> be offered hot links to:
>
> (under personal creators), other bibliographic identities
> (under corporate/institutional creators), earlier and later names
> (under works), related works (730 _0, 7XX 1_/$t subfield)
> (under topics), broader, narrower and related terms
> (under genre/form), broader, narrower and related genre/forms
>
> What do you think?
>
> Martha
>
>
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Martha M. Yee
> Cataloging Supervisor
> UCLA Film & Television Archive
> 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
> Los Angeles, CA 90038-2616
> 323-462-4921 x27
> 323-469-9055 (fax)
> myee_at_ucla.edu (Email)
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> "The good ended happily and the bad ended unhappily. That is what fiction
> means"--Miss Prism in The importance of being Earnest by Oscar Wilde.
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Tue Jul 31 2007 - 13:38:25 EDT