> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan H. Harwell
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:56 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Fw: Zoomi and your library OPAC
>
> I've been intrigued by this discussion and surprised that few
> apparently have studied the history of the book. (I only had
> one class in it myself, so I'm not an expert.) A major
> concept in the field is the idea of "paratext," i.e.,
> everything that surrounds the text itself. Readers (and
> browsers) draw lots of meaning from typeface, tactile
> qualities, book size, etc., and particularly from the cover.
> Even when we're browsing a shelf of books without dust
> jackets, we make judgments about the books via visual cues
> (color, size, condition, etc.). We're not just reading
> titles. When the dust jackets are present, we make more
> informed judgments. The images, blurbs, and overall look of
> the book jacket serve to distinguish each book from the next
> in various ways.
> Sometimes we get false cues, of course, sort of like the way
> that some movies are effectively advertised as a different
> genre via the trailer.
> (For a hilarious take on this, see
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlish881qY)
>
> If you were physically browsing a library shelf, and each
> book was in a uniform archival box with a title/author/year
> label, how would this change your experience and your
> success? What if the video store were set up like this too?
> How does this relate to an OPAC that effectively does the same thing?
Also:
> > Amazon knows what works. And what works selling a book
> ought to have
> > some relationship to what works browsing it.
A couple of points on this. Libraries normally use the most unattractive
binding available: "library bindings" are designed to be economical, protect
the book, and be easy to maintain. They can be really ugly. Another point:
the binder normally adds only the title on the spine and the call number.
Finally, when books are on the shelves with only their spines showing, there
is much less paradata for the user to make a judgment.
I would also like to point out that the definition of what "works" in Amazon
may not necessarily be the same as what "works" in a library catalog. Since
Amazon is a business, what works is if people see enough of a book to want
to fork out the cash to buy it. In a library, this is not a consideration.
For example, scholars may only need to review a specific book to make sure
that they do *not* need it, but it still needs to be checked in any case,
and this would have to be considered a case that "worked" in a library
setting. Andrew Abbott described this very well in his lecture "Library
Research and Its Infrastructure in the Twentieth Century" at
http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/pubs/catalog/pdfs/windsor_abbott.pdf.
The possibilities with full-text Google Book searches may change some of
these considerations, though. The title page or book jacket is always
available on Google Books and may provide more paradata, while scholars may
be able to see enough of a book to rule it out.
Jim Weinheiemr
Received on Tue Jul 01 2008 - 09:54:14 EDT