All you say is true. And the 80 percent solution is a reasonable one for
many (most?) circumstances. But no one is saying "customize for every
individual" or even "customize for every recognizeable user group." What we
(well, me anyway) are saying is (1) that we oughtn't design systems that
satisfy the needs of only one rather narrowly defined group (e.g. college
underclassmen, high school educated public library users, native Spanish (or
Russian or Thai) speakers, young children, university professors, whatever),
and (2) that we need to be careful to base our decisions on actual data and
information rather than on anecdote and personal perceptions.
It may be that the needs of many definable groups nearly coincide, and isn't
that fortunate ....
Janet Swan Hill, Professor
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Barr
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:14 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Browsing percentages / analytics
Repeat after me: There is no typical user. There is no typical user.
There is no typical user.
This is a bit off topic, but in response to the notion that there is "no
typical user" I am going to have to disagree. Unfortunately, designing
custom software for each individual user is not a practical solution.
Hopefully, we are doing the necessary testing to identify the typical
user. Hopefully we don't misinterpret the data we have. And hopefully we
aren't letting that testing slow us down too much. And more importantly,
I hope that we are meeting our users face-to-face and finding out what
their REAL challenges are; that can tell us a lot more than web stats,
charts, and graphs ever will... the stats won't tell you that users
aren't using a feature because it is hidden, misnamed, etc.
As for the next step (what you do with the data): I try to apply some of
Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, whenever building a piece of
software or web site. Especially the all-important 80/20 rule. If we can
make software that people *enjoy* using as much and are as elegant as
Apple's software, I think libraries will become popular places.
"Apply the 80 Percent Solution:
During the design process, if you discover problems with your product
design, you might consider applying the 80 percent solution---that is,
designing your software to meet the needs of at least 80 percent of your
users. This type of design typically favors simpler, more elegant
approaches to problems.
If you try to design for the 20 percent of your target audience who are
power users, your design may not be usable by the other 80 percent of
users. Even though that smaller group of power users is likely to have
good ideas for features, the majority of your user base may not think in
the same way. Involving a broad range of users in your design process
can help you find the 80 percent solution."
(http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGui
delines/XHIGHIDesign/chapter_5_section_3.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000353
-TPXREF131)
--chris
Janet Hill wrote:
> Repeat after me: There is no typical user. There is no typical user.
> There is no typical user.
>
> Statements made, or decisions reached based on a general statement of "the
> users need ....; the users want ....; etc." should make us all nervous and
> suspicious. We simply can't make good decisions based on anecdote, and
we
> can't make good decisions for all libraries based on our individual
> experience with one sort of library, or predominantly one sort of user.
> Many of us have experience of people making those sorts of decisions, and
of
> the rest of us living to regret it (and to mop up afterward).
>
> Persuade us with actual data, carefully collected, clearly defined, and
> thoughtfully considered.
>
> Janet Swan Hill, Professor
> Associate Director for Technical Services
> University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
> Boulder, CO 80309
> janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
> *****
> Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
> - Gustav Mahler
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Bryan Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:43 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Browsing percentages / analytics
>
> Selden Deemer wrote that "Our users would probably be better served if we
> got rid of all choices save keyword, author, and title."
>
> But I am a member of that group of users that knows how to use all the
> other features besides keyword, author, and title effectively.
>
> Am I better served if you reduced my range of options, especially in those
> cases, which for me is often, when keyword, author, and title prove to be
> insufficient? How many times should users search by subject or series
> or in order to justify their existence as potential search options? Is
> there some target number?
>
> Undergraduate students, which we seem to focus on to the exclusion of all
> others, eventually grow up to become more thoughtful about how they
> approach their search for information. At least I did. Can we not
> accommodate the range of strategies that different groups of users bring
to
> their searching?
>
> Bryan Campbell
> Library Assistant
> VDOT Research Library
> 530 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
> Ph: (434) 293-1903 FAX: (434) 293-4196
> Email: bryan.campbell_at_VDOT.virginia.gov
> Email: classz696_at_yahoo.com
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 05 2008 - 14:45:04 EST