We have the technology to provide interfaces that give the user _pretty
good stuff_ when they arrive at our interface more or less untrained.
It is within the realm of possibility in 2008. Are you suggesting we
should _avoid_ doing that because it's bad for the users? Or just that
while it might not be bad, it's not actually something we should spend
our resources striving for either?
Now, there can and SHOULD be more sophisticated things you can do with
our interfaces that the naive beginner is not going to know how to do.
But I suggest that the availability of these things should not get in
the way of the naive beginner's use. I suggest that we in fact have the
duty to make full use of 2008 technologies and design methodologies to
produce interfaces that give even the naive user something decent
We also have the duty to provide sophisticated features -- making them
as easy to use as possible, but inevitably including some that are not
useable by naive beginners. Those features are waiting for the naive
beginners to figure out on their own or get training on when and if they
need them.
Where do you disagree with this?
Most people ignored my earlier post about the metaphor of our interfaces
as 'ladders'. The naive user can step on at the first rung, but can
climb the rungs to more and more sophisticated features, as they become
comfortable with the rung their on, as they need more sophisticated
features.
Do you think this is infeasible, a fantasy that can't happen? Do you
think it's actually a BAD idea? Do you think it's unneccesary?
I don't believe we have the luxury to say that our interfaces _require_
advanced training to use. Our users -- in public libraries but also in
academic libraries, students but also faculty (yes really!) -- simply
will not use them if this is the case. Because in 2008 they have
alternatives. But this isn't an unfortunate defeat we must do only
because we have to -- it is in fact our MISSION to make our tools as
easy to use as possible, we do not serve our users well by doing
anything but making this one of priorities.
If there's one phone, camera, DVD player, or iPod that takes
significantly LESS learning than another, that one will probably WIN.
One reason the iPod is so popular is becuase it in fact does NOT take
much learning to use. There are other music players with more features,
but few that surpass the iPod for ease of use. There's nothing wrong
with this, it's human nature.
Ranganathan said it, and it's still true, our primary mission is to:
save the time of the reader. It is not an admission of defeat, it's
what we are FOR. If we can't do it, then our users will find somewhere
else that can, but I think we _could_ do it better than almost anyone else.
I am very frustrated by people who seem to think that libraries not only
do NOT have a duty to make our tools as easy as possible to use, but
almost think we have a duty to do the REVERSE. Cutter, Lubetzky,
Ranganathan, all had the goal of making things as easy as possible for
the user. Cutter's arguments on the superiority of the 'dictionary
catalog' are arguments about ease of use for busy and lazy users -- he
admitted that other forms of arrangement were more powerful in certain
circumstances, but the dictionary catalog won out because it was easier
and took less training to use. We have new tools available to us that
Cutter could barely imagine. It is our duty to use them.
Jonathan
Janet Hill wrote:
> We don't expect people to know how to drive a car without some instruction.
> Using your phone, camera, DVD player, or IPod takes some learning. People
> don't instinctively know how to create a personal web page or make waffles.
> (Yes, I know I'm talking about in extremes, here).
>
> There is at present no way to make everything about searching for
> information on the internet (or in library catalogs) completely transparent,
> totally intuitive and at the same time totally effective. People must be
> willing to learn and apply SOMETHING to the process. But, we still want
> them not to have to learn more than they have the tolerance for .....
> understanding that the tolerance of most people is pretty low.
>
> Many years ago, when the NOTIS system was first adding keyword searching to
> its online catalog (early 80s), a young programmer was heard to utter that
> users ought to know how the machine "thought" so they could understand how
> to retrieve information. Needless to say, all the librarians gave a
> resounding NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT to that viewpoint. It shouldn't be necessary
> for users to be initiated into the mysteries of searching to be able to get
> information. But we aren't yet sufficiently Star Trekkian to be able just
> to say "Computer, what is the xxxxxx" and have the computer retrieve exactly
> what we wanted (even if we couldn't figure out how to say it). We're still
> in the "how quaint" stage of development (to quote Dr. Scott, as he gave up
> and typed a query into the computer)
>
>
> Janet Swan Hill, Professor
> Associate Director for Technical Services
> University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
> Boulder, CO 80309
> janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
> *****
> Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
> - Gustav Mahler
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:10 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] What do users understand?
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 02:08, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Oh, come on! What is this antiquated thinking doing here, if not as an
> example of just how wrong you guys are getting stuff? Seriously, this
> is perhaps the craziest thing I've read here so far, insisting that
> people have to learn a damn thing about librarianship and metadata in
> order to get some good help. Librarians everywhere are trained as
> specialists in metadata and helping people find the info they're
> after. That is their job; to help people. Let me reiterate; their job
> is to help people. If you create systems you need special
> understanding to use, you've failed miserably.
>
> Let me say that again; if you've created systems that demands that
> people need to learn how *you* think, you've *failed*. This is not to
> say that people won't learn new stuff, nor that we can't expect them
> to do so, but to require it? Massive fail.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
Received on Fri Mar 13 2009 - 16:14:34 EDT