One thing that came out of the FoBC report was the lack of hard data to
help us make decisions. This came partially from Prof. Jose-Marie
Griffith, whose field is metrics for libraries. I'm taking her word for
the lack of good data -- I've done a little bit of searching for it, but
can't claim to be exhaustive.
A big barrier to gaining better data is $$, since anything other than
small, one-off studies take considerable funding. This goes along with
the statements about loss of the 'L' in "LIS" and the distance of the
academic arm of our profession from actual practice. I think we have a
lot of anecdotal 'evidence' from the front line troops in our libraries,
but not much that you could actually bank on (although the expression
'bank on', given our situation today, may be one that should disappear
form our vocabulary).
kc
Bill Dueber wrote:
> I've seen a few (unanswered) requests in this thread for relevant research
> on this topic -- is there none? Phrases "I like to..." and "I can imagine a
> user who..." quickly lead to disaster, forming the basis for why usability
> testing is so powerful.
>
> Or is the relevant research too hard to find because our search/browse
> interfaces are so awful? :-)
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Owen, yes, I think this is worth exploring. One of the bright lights of
>> early librarianship (no time to dig it up, maybe later) talked about "known
>> order," mainly referring, of course, to alphabetical order. Back to the
>> phone book: if your language has an alphabetical order (and not all do),
>> then taking words/names and placing them in that order is helpful because
>> users know the alphabet. If instead you ordered the phone book by how tall
>> people are, it wouldn't be very helpful because the order wouldn't match the
>> user's knowledge. The other thing about this kind of search is that the user
>> probably has to have a pretty good idea of what he's looking for -- a
>> particular place in the known order, e.g. someone's last name. This is
>> really a 'find' not a 'browse' in my mind. No one expects to go from a-z in
>> the phone book, although they may wish to in a shorter list (your journal
>> titles example). Funny, though, that we don't expect items on a restaurant
>> menu to be in alphabetical order, yet we are usually able to find what we
>> are looking for ("do they have a tuna sandwich"?). I think that *quantity*
>> of entries is a big factor in terms of how much order is needed.
>>
>> It seems to be inherent in a thesaurus that the users are not expected to
>> already know the order of the entries, but that the thesaurus actually
>> guides the user. The user isn't doing a mere lookup, but is following a
>> structure. The user possibly expects to be directed to other concepts from
>> his entry term and the thesaurus must be able to guide the user from
>> whatever starting point the user chooses. So if someone goes into the
>> thesaurus with the term "sociology" the thesaurus will provide a conceptual
>> context and some directions the user can go in. Thesauri tend to be
>> hierarchical, but I think we could do ones that are not so using more
>> relationships than just BT, NT, RT.
>>
>> Some folks have experimented with providing LC classification has a kind of
>> subject browse. I don't know how useful that has turned out to be for users.
>> It is multiple hierarchies and not perfectly hierarchical, but it has
>> conceptual structure. But LCSH isn't LCC. The main thing is that LCSH is
>> neither a 'known order' list (because users don't know the entry terms) nor
>> is it a thesaurus, because it has so little conceptual structure. So trying
>> this thought experiment with LCSH in mind gets one pretty twisted.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> Stephens, Owen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thanks Ross
>>>
>>> I completely agree! I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit here - because I
>>> think the issues are worth exploring.
>>> I don't think, as you say, "browse indexes" per se are the problem - but
>>> thesaurus browse presents special problems in terms of User Interface design
>>> (I don't feel for example that Bernhard has agreed on this yet, and I'm not
>>> clear if this is because he disagrees or because I haven't been clear enough
>>> - if he, or others, disagree then it would be interesting to understand why)
>>>
>>> If we agree on this (or at least that thesaurus browse offers specific
>>> challenges for User Interface) what the best ways of presenting the power of
>>> the thesauri to the user is so they can exploit it to its fullest potential?
>>>
>>> Finally - the big question - how do I find a good plumber in the greater
>>> Manhattan area?
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The difference between the journal A-Z list (or a phone book) and a
>>>> thesaurus browse is that vocabularies generally offer an additional
>>>> axis -- up and down.
>>>>
>>>> Couple this to the fact the thesaurus in particular (in this case,
>>>> LCSH) is granular as hell and sometimes "obtusely phrased" with
>>>> crossreferences all over the place and I think you have a very alien
>>>> interface to most users.
>>>>
>>>> Then add in the fact that most subject browses don't actually show the
>>>> resources they're referring to (i.e. the bib records) -- although
>>>> obviously this is technically feasible.
>>>>
>>>> I think an easy distinction is how much easier it is (to take the
>>>> phone book analogy a little further) to find something in the white
>>>> pages (known item/A-Z) vs. the yellow pages (hierarchical subject then
>>>> alpha browse). The larger the metropolitan area, the lower the
>>>> usability of the yellow pages.
>>>>
>>>> -Ross.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Stephens, Owen
>>>> <o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Karen,
>>>>>
>>>>> I generally agree with all this. I tend to think exploring from a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 'known item' or 'known set of items' is what people do in the physical
>>>> environment (identifying a collection, shelf, or other physical
>>>> starting point to browse). However, I also believe that in certain
>>>> situations the concept of a browse of headings works for the user and
>>>> they are happy with it. For example (and I can't explain it!)
>>>> persistently users like to have an A-Z list of e-journals - every time
>>>> I suggest they can use the catalogue, I run up against the fact that
>>>> the users really seem to prefer an A-Z list - I don't know why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What I'm trying to explore is where the problems with browsing the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 'headings' list lies. What we've seen from at least a couple of people
>>>> is an argument that presented properly the LCSH (or indeed Name
>>>> authority files) are a powerful (and essential?) tool for all users.
>>>> We've also seen Bernhard's straw poll that librarians like browse
>>>> indexes (but still not, I don't think, nailed down what exactly a
>>>> browse index is, and whether we are all talking about the same thing)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You say "users aren't looking for headings" - I tend to agree - I'd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> be interested to hear any counter arguments? (the only counter argument
>>>> I can think of is that if users look for headings they do more
>>>> effective searching because buy not using the headings they risk
>>>> missing items - but personally although I might accept that this is
>>>> currently true, it isn't where I think we should be aiming).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Personally my current feeling is that these authority files and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> structured thesauri can work hard for the user, but that the user does
>>>> not need to be exposed to them for this to happen. I am, however, open
>>>> to persuasion :) Having worked in Medical libraries a while ago, my
>>>> instinct is that for searching specialist literature there is more to
>>>> be said for explicitly interacting with the taxonomy - but does this
>>>> just contradict my starting position?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen Stephens
>>>>> Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
>>>>> Central Library
>>>>> Imperial College London
>>>>> South Kensington Campus
>>>>> London
>>>>> SW7 2AZ
>>>>>
>>>>> t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
>>>>> e: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>>>>>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>>>>>> Sent: 13 March 2009 14:06
>>>>>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Browse functionality (was Whose elephant is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> it,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> anyway? (the OLE project))
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephens, Owen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, browsing a structured thesaurus/authority file/taxonomy -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> call it what you like - is less common or straightforward. What
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> isn't
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> clear to me is whether this is about implementation or about the
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> nature
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of structured taxonomies (my guess is that it is a combination). In
>>>>>
>>>>>> general I don't think library users need teaching how to use a
>>>>>> telephone book - but when the telephone book starts to say things
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> like
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "See, See Also, and Narrower Term References:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Broader Terms not currently available" when you look for Leo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tolstoy's number it starts to get complicated :)
>>>>>> Owen, as I said in a post somewhere along the line, we should
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> about what it is we are asking users to browse (or offering to them
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> browse): catalog headings. I suspect that people are fine browsing
>>>>>
>>>>>> something that they already understand (phone book), but my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> experience
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> is that users don't understand the dis-embodied headings list, since
>>>>>
>>>>>> they have seen the catalog entry as the 'unit' they are seeking.
>>>>>> Essentially, users aren't looking for headings, they are looking for
>>>>>> books/movies/music. I think only librarians and 'super-users' look
>>>>>> explicitly for headings. It probably made more sense to users of the
>>>>>> card catalog because they saw the headings at the top of the cards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> in our case users doing a browse in the online catalog did not
>>>>>
>>>>>> understand what they were looking at. Add to that the fact that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> library
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> cataloging headings can be rather artificial and obtuse, and that
>>>>>
>>>>>> browse
>>>>>> lists in large catalogs are unwieldy ("Hamlet. 1603" "Hamlet. 1604"
>>>>>> "Hamlet.... " for pages) and users just give up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some thinks I think users would be happy to browse:
>>>>>> - all the books by an author
>>>>>> - all the books in a 'series' (e.g. Harry Potter)
>>>>>> - everything new put on the shelf in the last week
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We treat these as 'retrievals' but this is what users come to the
>>>>>> library to browse, and I suspect that's what browse means to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking of "index browsing", not "browsing" in all its
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> broad,
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> general, everyday usage. Think of this like browsing the index of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a book, an alphanumerical arrangement. Only that in a database
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> you don't physically flip pages but click links to get the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> behind the index entries. Or, for that matter, to be taken
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> forthwith
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the synonym or alternate form of name or whatever. The point is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the index gives you serendipitous context from which to go on
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and explore terms you didn't happen to think of but find useful.
>>>>>>>> Something to which keyword searching, for all its merits, just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> equivalent - for it cannot show you what you missed. Good index
>>>>>>>> browsing
>>>>>>>> offers help and insight in an unobtrusive way - once the user
>>>>>>>> understands what an index actually is. If the latter is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inachievable,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then of course that concept is doomed, for better or worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Consult
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jims latest posting do decide which.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK - I really feel we need to get more specific terminology here -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> for me "index browsing" suggests the ability to browse a list of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> terms
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> pulled from records you have in the database. This could be a
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> keyword
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> index - but I'm not sure browsing a keyword index is really very
>>>>>
>>>>>> sensible or useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I can see you are not talking about this, but talking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> taxonomy browsing? We have already established I think that an
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> actual
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> alphabetical list of LCSH is not what you are looking for, but
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> rather
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> some way of exploring LCSH in a way that hides some of the
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> complexity
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> until the time it is useful to the user?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the idea that keyword searching cannot show you what you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> missed needs exploring - as instinctively I believe this is a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> function
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of the User experience not of the approach they have taken. This is
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> one
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> of the things that the 'facets' uncovered by the type of NGCs we are
>>>>>
>>>>>> currently seeing - however the question of how this helps the user
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is a
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> slightly different one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To take for example the NLA VuFind implementation - since I've got
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to hand :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's say I'm interested in the book "Daredevils of the skies" by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Norman Ellison and similar literature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I do a keyword search for 'Daredevils' then one of the facets I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> see is the subject heading "Air pilots -- Australia -- Biography --
>>>>>> Juvenile literature". At the moment this implementation only allows
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> me
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to narrow my search to this subject heading - but there is
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> no reason why there shouldn't also be an option to 'broaden' my
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> search
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to include all items with this heading - this is an user
>>>>>
>>>>>> experience/interface design choice - nothing to do with where I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> started
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> my search.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, even without this 'Broaden search to this subject
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> heading'
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> option, the NLA implementation does do several other things that
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> allow
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> me to explore the NLA collection serendipitously - the 'Finding
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> aids'
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> points up that the Papers of Norman Ellison are available *and* if I
>>>>>
>>>>>> click on the book 'Daredevils of the skies' and look at 'Similar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Items'
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I see that I can view a collection of Norman Ellison's slides - this
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> clearly showing me stuff that I would have otherwise 'missed'.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not arguing that these latter points of exploration should
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> replace structured taxonomies - I guess I'm undecided on the merits
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> this - but I am convinced that if our structured headings are going
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> be successfully exploited we need to understand what value they add,
>>>>>
>>>>>> exactly how they add it, and then design a user experience that
>>>>>> exploits this. I haven't seen anything that achieves the last of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> these
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> yet...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------
>> 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
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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 - 13:39:36 EDT