Karen Coyle wrote:
> If we understand
> what is confusing to users, we should be able to provide a catalog that
> doesn't confuse them.
>
Really? Isn't this saying that we should never expect them to be able to
learn a thing? To insist 'they' always know enough and all faults are
ours? I'not sure. But OK, the alphabetical browse
list is confusing no end. Maybe phone books weren't ever properly
understood either. Maybe the alphabetical arrangement itself is an
artifact that requires some special aspect of literacy that is
hard to learn - for everyone except librarians - and harder now than
ever because the necessity of understanding it has all but disappeared
with keyword access and search slots and instantaneous response.
Why do iPods still use alphabetic arrangements? They might put a
little search engine into it...
But you are right, 2% usage is much too low to justify the expense.
LCSH, for one thing, must go out the window. If you break the elabaorate
term chains into words for keyword search, then what's the point for
THAT expense? LCSH makes sense only when presented as an alphabetical
list for browsing.
B.Eversberg
Received on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 11:09:19 EDT