Re: Whose elephant is it, anyway? (the OLE project)

I have not followed all of the remarks on browsable indexes in this list 
(there was sooo much traffic). Still I would like to cast my vote 
against browsable indexes, and this is why: We used to do some usability 
research on solutions with browsables indexes some years ago, the last 
one being a kind of European digital library for mathematicians called 
EULER. These studies (none of them published but some presented at 
meetings) showed two fatal misconceptions on the part of our test persons:

* On typing in their search terms they expected results and not an index 
- the index causing irritation and frustration.
* Some test persons who were willing to try and make sense of the index 
thought that what was just an alphabetical listing of keywords and 
subject headings must have some semantic connection to what they had 
been looking for. The index opened up at the part of the alphabet where 
the search term would have occurred had it existed. I remember one test 
person (dean of a faculty of mathematics and hence used to using his 
brains) saying: "This is stealing my time."

I might change my mind after a usability test of Kent's solution of a 
browsable index under SOLR: 
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Browse/Subjects?browse=subjects&from=aborigines. 
The design makes sufficiently clear what you can do: browse <field> 
starting from <search term>.  In this example I like the way I find the 
subject heading "indigenous peoples" when searching for "aborigines". On 
the other hand: Why not include the 'correct' search term automatically 
and tell the user what the catalogue did?

www.answers.com is fine the way it works but does not help finding the 
heading that the library use in case of synonyms.

Ursula Schulz


Dan Matei schrieb:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:01:30 +0100
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Whose elephant is it, anyway? (the OLE project)
>
>   
>> OTOH, if indeed a majority in this list agreed "A good catalog needs no
>> browsable lists" then that would be a nice result to hand down to OPAC 
>> designers.
>>     
>
>   
>> B.Eversberg
>>     
>
> I raise my both hands in favour of "browse".
>
> I even say more: I would like to see every search "morphing" into a browse. (Now) I see only two ways of doing that:
>
> a) like www.answers.com does: you start typing in the search box and after a few chars. you see the 10 entries in the 
> general index sharing the prefix you typed;
> b) when a (simple) search is performed, beside the hit list you could see the general index page where your term would 
> fit.  This way you could take advatage of collocation also.
>
> Of course, sophistication is possible.
>
> Dan Matei
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dan Matei, director
> CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory]
> Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
> 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania
> tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
> www.cimec.ro
>
>   


-- 
*****************************************
Prof. Ursula Schulz
HAW Hamburg, Fakultät DMI
Department Information
Berliner Tor 5
20099 Hamburg
Tel.: +49 (0)40 42875 3614
Fax: +49 (0)40 42875 3609
E-Mail: uschulz_at_uni-bremen.de
www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/pers/ursula.schulz/
******************************************