Re: What do users understand?

In my head, I've had this kind of 'ladder' metaphor.

Our interfaces DO need to work for the naive beginner user.  Our 
interfaces ALSO need to support sophisticated tasks that maybe the naive 
user isn't going to be able to figure out how to do -- but support these 
without getting in the way of the naive user.

AND our interfaces need to serve as a 'ladder' allowing the naive user 
to gain more and more sophistication, one step at a time, as they have 
the need/desire. 

This is why I don't like the idea of separate 'beginner' and 'advanced' 
interfaces -- too big a break to 'switch', the user is uncomfortable 
switching from what they are comfortable with. Rather, one interface, 
which has features in it which naive users simply don't use, but which 
don't get in the way of their use either. And which they can begin to 
use when they are ready for it. Ideally, if we can pull it off, 
discovering these features for themselves when they are ready for it.  
But also in response to interaction with librarians. "Gee, this easy 
simple interface is working well for me, but the problem is that it's 
giving me X when I want Y for this particular thing I'm trying to do 
right now." Librarian: "Ah, well to do THAT, you just need to click HERE."

Jonathan

Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> 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
>
>