Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>> We DO need to provide tools for expert researchers (even if that only
>> includes librarians) _as well as_ novice users un-interested in learning
>> sophisticated tools. I don't think _either one_ can come at the expense
>> of the other. (Which isn't exactly what Mann said, but it's what I take
>> from it).
>>
>
> I think part of the problem here is that you state they are two
> different things. They don't need to be.
>
>
I agree, actually, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, there
are various different ways for the same tool to serve both needs.
For instance, in Google, if you know about it and need it, you can enter
things directly in the search box like "site:columbia.edu" or what have
you. Same interface, but there's a way for the 'expert' user to use it
in a different way than most users ever will, and it may be of high
utility to that expert user.
Now, maybe in the future with advanced technology even that wouldn't be
neccesary. But I doubt it. In any event, the goal should be unifying the
interface as much as possible. I've written before that we should
provide a 'ladder' by which the novice searcher can gradually and easily
become a more advanced searcher one step at a time, as they desire more
power. You don't do this by by having two completely seperate
interfaces, so someone must abandon one and learn an entirely new one to
move to 'advanced'.
However, for the foreseeable future, I imagine there will be _features_
that are highly useful to the most sophisticated searchers, and which we
have a responsibility to provide, that will not be used by most
searchers. The goal is to integrate these into the interface as
seamlessly as possible, so they are available for those who need them,
and do not get in the way of ease of use for those who do not want them.
I think this is entirely possible.
Jonathan
> We have this great story here about this little old lady academic
> specialist reference librarian (bun, gray dress, strict, the whole
> shebang!) who loved her meta data fields search. She was introduced to
> a funky Lucene, and she hated it. After a while, though, when she got
> to grips with relevance ranking bringing a little bit more results
> than she expected but still held the good stuff at the top, she hated
> her old tool and wouldn't go back. (Others have a better summary of
> this one, I'm sure)
>
> By thinking we need specialist tools that can't be generalist tools
> too, we dig ourselves further down in the bog.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
> ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Thu Aug 09 2007 - 06:08:42 EDT