I suspect personally that even though it's counter-intuitive to some of
us and doesn't seem like it would be 'efficient', many users like having
cover-display-based access for browse-based discoverability. It would
be interesting to see some actual evidence of some kind based on actual
users, rather than our assumptions of efficiency. Certainly though, even
if some/many users did appreciate and want and get something out of
cover-display based browse-discovery, we could never make that the
_only_ method of browse or discovery, and may not even want to make it
the default. To me, I suspect it would still be a welcome additional
service.
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
> The dynamism and look of the site is surely interesting, but it raises
> a key usability principle about covers and discovery. I learned this
> designing LibraryThing and I think it holds up in the OPAC, and should
> not be disregarded in the mad dash to covers:
>
> Covers are not "better" than title / author lists, but different:
>
> 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.
>
> The recognition/discovery dichotomy is key to LibraryThing. Users
> spend some of their time in known items (their books), and some in
> unknown items (tag lists, etc.). That is, covers are a great way to
> look at your own library, because you can recognize a cover you know
> without even reading it. The same applies to looking at someone else's
> library on LibraryThing—covers make it easy to quickly spot the books
> you share. But covers are a lousy way of showing people items they
> *don't* know. A list of unknown books is much easier to deal with than
> a phalanx of unknown covers.
>
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Geoff Sinclair <geoffs_at_nipissingu.ca> wrote:
>
>> I believe the Zoomii interface has a lot of potential. It works well for
>> what it does because it represents a small bookstore collection. But I don't
>> really see that scalability would be a problem for a larger collection if
>> you beefed up the browsing options: more specific headings, tag clusters,
>> user lists. And, for use as a library application, I'd like to see options
>> for subject heading and LC classification browsing.
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> --
>> Geoff Sinclair
>> Manager of Technical Services
>> Education Centre Library, Nipissing University / Canadore College
>> Tel: 705-474-3450 x4439
>> E-mail: geoffs_at_nipissingu.ca
>> Web: http://www.eclibrary.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> Steven Harris wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding a virtual browse of the shelves: I'm not sure it will work very
>>> well for a collection of, say, 2 million volumes. Maybe I'm just too tied
>>> to text and books covers would work fine, but seems like it would be
>>> unwieldy with very large collections.
>>> --Steven Harris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "Stephens, Owen" <o.stephens_at_IMPERIAL.AC.UK> 6/25/2008 2:12 am >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Well, it's cute, but I'm not convinced this kind of 'real life' analogy
>>> style interface works particularly well on computers. I remember several
>>> years ago seeing a description of a 'virtual desktop', that looked like a
>>> real desk, and where you had to 'go to the post office' to send an email -
>>> what a pain, when you can just click send!
>>>
>>> I think experimentation should be encouraged and so it is really nice to
>>> see this type of thing being tried, but I tried to use it and found it
>>> incredibly clunky - it has impact, but I don't personally believe it has
>>> staying power - personally I wouldn't use it instead of Amazon to browse.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> http://zoomii.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Thu Jun 26 2008 - 10:25:25 EDT