I didn't go for the ladder idea because, upon reflection, it sounds too
linear to me, and I think it's hard to move knowledge along in a linear
fashion. But I think the idea that users can get more and more skilled
is an obviously good idea, only it will probably have to be more
multi-dimensional than a ladder.
One thing that Prof. Timothy Burke emphasized in his talk at the FOBC
meeting at Google (which was filmed but never issued because Google
claimed some absurd rights over not only the film but the content, so
most people wouldn't agree to its distribution -- a case of lawyers gone
wild), was that 'expert' is not the person but the person in a
particular context. I can consider myself expert in searching for books,
for example, but if I need to delve into government documents or music,
I'm a total beginner. I'm also much more expert in English than in any
other language. There is also the delicate interplay of knowledge of a
subject and expertise in using a particular system. All of these make
the design of systems for users very complex.
I wish we could see what systems would look like if users designed them.
Yes, we'd have hundreds or thousands of designs, but it would be
fascinating to really see the user views of bibliographic data.
kc
Stephens, Owen wrote:
> I like the idea of the ladder - but I probably don't have enough experience at designing user experiences to know how we might approach designing interfaces that work in this way. As Ross said I did mention games as examples of 'educative' systems - but I have to admit to having no real idea how this would be applied to resource discovery systems.
>
> It seems to me that the debate so far has tended to polarise between 'the user should not need to know anything about how systems work or knowledge is organised' and 'the user should learn how the system organises knowledge, otherwise they won't get the most out of it' (I'm not sure if anyone is really taking such extreme views, but for me these are the two ends of the spectrum I see represented in the debate).
>
> I find myself torn. In general I take the 'user should not need to know anything' stance - to take an example that has been used several times, if I'm searching for material on World War I, we should be designing systems that can translate this into any appropriate subject headings and prompt me for any disambiguation, clarification or refinement as appropriate. I think with the current technology at our disposal this is possible to a large extent (note, I'm not saying current systems do this, but that I believe we should be looking for systems that can - and I also believe the technology is there or close enough)
>
> However, when I think of my experience (over 10 years ago now) working in a medical library, I find it hard to imagine effectively searching Medline without some specialist knowledge, and an understanding of how the Medline Thesaurus is constructed. If you are searching for diabetes you want to be specific on the type etc. If you want to filter on the outcomes of treatments you need to know the correct terms to filter on - these are specialist terms and you need to apply them properly.
>
> I'm left unsure whether this is a contradiction or whether specialist literature and thesauri need specialist knoweledge, while more general searching doesn't? Am I confusing specialist domain knowledge with understanding of a system of organising that knowledge? Can I have it both ways? Is this really general vs specialist, or something more like 'good enough' vs 'everything' or 'best'
>
> If there is a difference between the general and the specialist, then we come to the question - can a library catalogue and metadata adequately deal with both scenarios - and if so, at what point does the user go from 'general' to 'specialist' - and how does the interface adapt to this? Also, can LCSH realistically support specialist searching in the way a subject specific scheme does?
>
> I'm not sure how much this helps - just my own musings on what is not a straightforward question - none of the elements here - libraries, metadata, knowledge, users - are homogeneous, so I don't imagine there is a one size fits all solution.
>
> Owen
>
> PS just as I've been writing this a parallel to architecture has occurred to me (which is probably not that useful except as another metaphor!). Some styles of architecture put the infrastructure of the building on show - they shout 'this is how I work' - it is a feature and perhaps leads to an understanding of what goes into buildings - the Centre Pompidou is the building that springs to mind of course. This is interesting and occaisionally clever. However, I work in an office where various parts of the infrastructure is exposed (deliberately) - and it makes for a poor working environment - the concrete slabs in the ceiling, the exposed chiller beams, lights and pipes etc. I love the Centre Pompidou, but for everyday use I would prefer all this to be hidden and just go about doing its job without being in my face about it. :)
> ________________________________________
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross Singer [rossfsinger_at_GMAIL.COM]
> Sent: 14 March 2009 02:52
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] What do users understand?
>
> Jonathan, I'm not sure anybody was ignoring the idea of a 'ladder', at
> least I wasn't, it's just that I think the idea needs to be fleshed
> out a little more for it for it to have much substance.
>
> It seems pretty self-evident that this is a useful concept, but how
> are some ways it could work?
>
> I think it was Owen that mentioned a similar analog in videogames,
> where the game gets more difficult and complicated as the player gets
> more educated about the workings of the universe and the story.
>
> My personal take would be to avoid using browse-esque functionality as
> a human interface entirely, instead accomplish the objectives that the
> user would have been going for programmaticly.
>
> This, of course, requires an understanding of what people are trying
> to do with our systems (and that they know how to use them).
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Sat Mar 14 2009 - 13:20:38 EDT