> The dynamism and look of the site is surely interesting, but it raises
> a key usability principle about covers and discovery....
>
> 1. Covers are great for recognition, because visual memory is faster
> than reading.
> 2. Covers are terrible for discovery of new material, because reading
> covers, with all their different typefaces and layouts, is slower than
> reading a list.
I have never understood librarians' obsession with covers. If they are
so valuable, you'd think the common library practice of tossing them
when a book first arrives would be more controversial.
In a catalog context, I would liken them to cupholders in cars. At the
end of the day, they don't do that much and get far more attention
than they deserve.
I question how much covers are even used for recognition in a catalog
context. First of all, searching an online catalog will never like
browsing bookshelves. You can scan thousands of books on a shelf in
seconds, but good luck doing that on a computer screen that is smaller
by a few orders of magnitude.
One of the reasons browsing bookshelves works so well in stores is
because their collections are small. You can browse the technology
section in a bookstore, but this would be a hopeless way to find
something in a major academic library.
In my experience, covers are popular with everyone -- but as eye candy
rather than as something that is useful. If a cover isn't available
for the edition you have and you substitute a cover for another
edition that may look quite different, people perceive an improvement
in the catalog. I'll bet if you displayed random covers with the text
obscured, few people would realize what was going on.
kyle
Received on Thu Jun 26 2008 - 10:11:51 EDT