Regarding the too-familiar and anthropomorphic question "did you mean?", I
am reminded of an incident my mother reported years ago.
She drove up to an automated teller machine at her bank, and made a deposit,
whereupon the machine displayed the message, "Thank you, Mildred."
My mother then drove into the parking lot, got out and went into the bank,
where she spoke to the manager who was there, telling him that "That machine
doesn't know me well enough to use my first name!"
Within 2 weeks, the software had been changed, so that the message was a
simple, impersonal, "Thank you."
Speaking for myself, I've gotten used to the penchant we seem to have for
having machines "speak" as if they were people and am not offended by "Did
you mean" ..... which I take as a polite way of pointing out the most common
problem I have --- that of making a typo.
On the occasions when it's not a typo and there just isn't anything to be
found, and the machine/software suggests a stupid substitute ..... well, it
just gives me an opportunity to feel superior.
Janet Swan Hill, Professor
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:07 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] opac live search
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 - 12:25:51 EST