Bernhard Eversberg said:
"When I make mistakes entering search terms, that's my problem and mine to solve,
using my own intelligence and judgement when looking at inadequate results or 'zero hits'. This kind of features only raises unrealistic expectations and creates a trust where mistrust in technology is vital and trust in one's own capacities must not be eroded but supported."
That sounds sort of like going out for a Sunday drive, getting lost, and refusing to consult the GPS system to find one's way back home. :-)
Seriously, though, I would imagine that most of us on this list know our way around catalogs and have lots of experience using catalogs..."power users", so to speak. We need to be thinking about the next-generation "catalog" from the perspective of the casual or less experienced user. Just because a feature insults the power user's intelligence doesn't mean it won't be welcomed by the casual user. I don't buy the concept of making users work harder for their own good.
Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN
--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE> wrote:
From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] opac live search
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 10:12 AM
> We currently do a comparison match called "do you mean?"
Frankly, I'm appalled! I don't want to have a machine guessing
what I mean and then address me, as a person, with that kind
of unsolicited questions!
What I mean is my business and mine alone. When I make mistakes
entering search terms, that's my problem and mine to solve,
using my own intelligence and judgement when looking at inadequate
results or "zero hits".
This kind of features only raises unrealistic expectations and
creates a trust where mistrust in technology is vital
and trust in one's own capacities must not be eroded but supported.
This bending over backwards to spare the user the "zero hits"
experience is, I think, counterproductive in an insidious way.
All to easily, timid souls are apt to turn over their judgement
to the machine instead of working on it.
IOW, use neutral, unobtrusive, unpatronizing formulations for
functions that a reader might or might not want to use, esp. when
what the algorithm blurts out can easily be patent malarkey. Don't
create the impression that there's more intelligence inside the
machinery than there can possibly be.
B. Eversberg
Received on Fri Feb 20 2009 - 12:09:19 EST