A fine point about Amazon's findings being a proxy for testing, Tim. [
Although with the important caveat that Amazon's goals are not _exactly_
the same as ours. Trying to get browsers to buy as much as possible IS
in fact _similar_ to trying to get browsers to find the most useful
materials to them. Similar, but not identical.]
However, in this case, I'd note that a keyword search on amazon for
books DOES in fact return a list with a cover image next to each hit.
Sounds like Amazon decided that cover images are useful, right? Even
for a large list of books, like a search returning, in my case, 438,355
results. Each one has a book cover next to it.
True, Amazon does not provide a zoomi-type of browse interface. I'm not
convinced that just because Amazon doesn't do it means that Amazon
considered it, tried it, and found that it didn't increase sales,
however.
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
> Not to beat a dead horse, and not to over-praise Amazon, but it bears
> saying that the call for "testing" ignores the fact that the market
> has already done the testing. Amazon's success, and the fact that
> Amazon tests relentlessly are, to my mind, better data than anything
> but the most ambitious library OPAC testing could ever know.
>
> The situation is analogous to deciding that they need to "test"
> whether patrons prefer ebooks or real books. How do we know if we
> don't test, right? But a glance at the commercial world is sufficient
> to know that real books are much more popular.
>
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
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 - 10:48:11 EDT