Re: What do users understand?

Good post Tim,

"So, there's something to the idea of "teaching" interfaces, but I'm
wary of libraryland running to that idea." 

Of course, if no one even starts to run at all, you'll never be able to
read anything "thoughtful about how an interface "teaches" you
something-how you can simultaneously be intuitive and easy, and be
"moving someone along" to
something deeper."  Here, we need a little "L" in the LIS.  Librarian as
teacher, namely: organization of our shared understandings of the world
- in order to enable further exploration - needs to start somewhere, and
we hope that what we have carefully produced will be a decent start for
you no matter what topic you'd like to examine (that this particular
library has chosen to pay attention to that is).  

"My favorite example of that was a discussion on AUTOCAT about the
"educative" effects of Dewey...in grappling with
that embarrassing fossil you're learning something about the world...
you're learning something deeply limiting--that knowledge is a tree."

Weaknesses of tree metaphor - and Dewey - understood.  However, I think
the point in emphasizing the "educative effects of Dewey" is that while
knowledge is certainly about conversation (process) one is prone to
de-emphasize the all-important content aspect when a particular way of
displaying that content is seen to be problematic. 

~Nathan  

-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:33 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] What do users understand?

> 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.

This is a very interesting question. I'd love to read something
thoughtful about how an interface "teaches" you something-how you can
simultaneously be intuitive and easy, and be "moving someone along" to
something deeper. Interfaces do teach. Mostly they do it
unintentionally. What if we thought deeply about that teaching?

So, I'd love to read about it, and talk about it. I just feel that the
library world is *dreadfully* invested in the idea that bad interfaces
(widely construed) are "teaching" something. You hear the "teaching"
defense a lot in libraryland. Much of the time, it's a dodge--an
effort to excuse a bad interface. Sometimes what's being taught is
actually harmful. My favorite example of that was a discussion on
AUTOCAT about the "educative" effects of Dewey-that in grappling with
that embarrassing fossil you're learning something about the world. As
I see it,  apart from learning that fiction and Buddhism are
unimportant, you're learning something deeply limiting--that knowledge
is a tree.

So, there's something to the idea of "teaching" interfaces, but I'm
wary of libraryland running to that idea. It'd be like asking AA to
investigate the positive health effects of red wine.

Tim