The one time I worked on an ILS RFP we gathered up RFPs from other
libraries as examples. Huge amounts of those rfps went into excruciating
detail on acquisitions, serials control, etc. Out of 100+ pages, usually
only about 5-10 were on the user interface, while an acquisitions system
could easily take up 20-30. Talking to vendors, for integrated systems
libraries select them based on particular management functions -- in
part because those have to interact well with existing institutional
practices. I got the impression that the features of the user interface
were definitely secondary to most system selection.
This is what convinced me that we need to separate the management
functions from the user service functions. Libraries must have systems
that allow them to manage the library's business functions, and those
systems have to work well. By tying the user functions to the same
product, user services necessarily take second place in terms of system
development and selection. What we haven't yet been able to envision is
what this separation means for the data that we create, although I think
that systems like LibraryThing and potentially Open Library show the
possibility that a user layer can allow users to participate in the data
augmentation and organization of the data, and can improve the user
experience greatly.
kc
B.G. Sloan wrote:
> I completely sympathize with David Guion's argument against my "library systems seem to be designed BY librarians FOR librarians" pet peeve.
>
> Let me clarify what I meant. I've participated in the development of a number of ILS RFPs, and I have reviewed many other RFPs. In most cases, the committees developing the RFPs consist of librarians specifying system functionality from a librarian's perspective, i.e., librarians developing systems for librarians.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that such systems always worked well for librarians. My point was that the consideration of the general public users of library systems seems to be secondary.
>
> Bernie Sloan
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/6/09, David M Guion DMGUION <dmguion_at_UNCG.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>> From: David M Guion DMGUION <dmguion_at_UNCG.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Three years of NGC4LIB - reflections?
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 4:17 PM
>> Bernie Sloan wrote on 03/06/2009 03:55:07 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. One of my pet peeves about library technology is
>>>
>> that library
>>
>>> systems seem to be designed BY librarians FOR
>>>
>> librarians, with the
>>
>>> implication that a system that works for librarians
>>>
>> will also work
>>
>>> for the general public. I think that implicit
>>>
>> assumption lurks just
>>
>>> below the surface in a lot of our discussions.
>>>
>>>
>> Is it really? I think that is or was a slogan of one of the
>> big ILS
>> companies, but if this stuff is really designed by
>> librarians for
>> librarians, how come so much of it gets in the way of
>> librarians doing
>> their work. I think the company that had that slogan is the
>> same company
>> that provided the ILS I worked for at my last job. I
>> won't mention it,
>> because I'm not sure that I'm remembering right.
>> But anyway, that ILS
>> seemed to have very little that was configurable by local
>> IT people.
>> Everything had to be done at headquarters for a hefty fee.
>>
>> The company that markets the ILS I'm using now
>> apparently hasn't done what
>> seems to me like routine code maintenance for more than a
>> decade. We still
>> have to click to answer the question, "Is the diskette
>> ready?" There is so
>> much extra clicking and going back and forth that I
>> can't imagine anyone
>> who has ever used it has ever worked on the design team.
>>
>> And one complaint that I have heard almost universally is
>> how badly OPACs
>> actually work--both in terms of searching, display, and the
>> sheer amount
>> of information in the MARC records that is apparently not
>> used for
>> anything. If it's designed by librarians for
>> librarians, how come there
>> seem to be so few librarians who are happy with it? It
>> seems to be
>> designed by computer programmers who think they know
>> librarians' needs
>> better than librarians do and turn a deaf ear to all the
>> protesting. A
>> system that worked better for librarians would work better
>> for the general
>> public, but it would take a lot of work to get it better
>> for librarians
>> and more still to make any improvements specifically for
>> the general
>> public.
>>
>> ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
>> David Guion
>> Music Cataloger
>> University of North Carolina, Greensboro
>> Jackson Library
>> 320 College Ave.
>> Greensboro, NC 27412
>> (336) 334-5781
>> dmguion_at_uncg.edu
>>
>> The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets
>> the cheese.
>>
>> Bernie Sloan wrote on 03/06/2009 03:55:07 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. One of my pet peeves about library technology is
>>>
>> that library
>>
>>> systems seem to be designed BY librarians FOR
>>>
>> librarians, with the
>>
>>> implication that a system that works for librarians
>>>
>> will also work
>>
>>> for the general public. I think that implicit
>>>
>> assumption lurks just
>>
>>> below the surface in a lot of our discussions.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Sat Mar 07 2009 - 09:53:23 EST