When we did just a bit of (not statistically valid sample, qualitative)
user interviews, we were surprised to find that not only were our users
very diverse, but the user's academic "role" (faculty, staff, grad
student, undergrad) did NOT seem to be predictive of what "kind" of user
they were.
There were undergrads that needed/wanted very sophisticated tools, and
there were faculty that wanted "just like google".
A poster given on our local research is available here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13653258/Creating-DataDriven-Personas-to-Aid-Selection-and-Implementation-of-a-NextGeneration-Discovery-Interface
Although it's more about methods than findings, and doesn't highlight
the interesting finding I mention.
Lundgren,Jimmie Harrell wrote:
> Good Morning,
> I just wanted to start a little sub-thread for user focus and the future. To me, even though I have spent my professional career locked in the proverbial ivory tower I see there will probably continue to be strong differences among the skills, needs, and preferences of users. Those embracing the e-book probably still read print novels most of the time. Hey, I don't care if a public library finds it a waste of time to put novels in a classification scheme: my little sister will find them and read them anyway. My brother-in-law is satisfied with the brief and easy information he can Google for most of his everyday information needs, and so am I to tell the truth. When scholars have needs for reliable in-depth retrieval in their field they are not.
>
> The "discovery system" in front of my library catalog already has a scope far beyond that of the actual ILS that manages the physical inventory of the library, as we have batch loaded large sets of records for remotely available materials (both e-resources and the holdings of CRL that we can borrow easily). Extending its scope to articles has been embraced by some of our sister institutions, but resisted here where the intensity of research in fields requiring various specialized databases is greater. It is easier for naïve patrons to use than the ILS, (which is still also available), and it seems like many naively assume catalogs will work like Google. It also seems like even though our catalog is used quite a lot by some, many members of my university community rarely or never use it. I look forward to having some numbers to share with you as evidence for these statements.
>
> I confess to shaking my head over some of the posts I read on the list that seem to me to embrace one complaint or solution that clearly won't fit for all users. I cheer for users who independently get what they need using Bing, Google, etc., but I also believe that users are still the reason that libraries and librarians will continue to be important in as many ways as there are users.
>
> Reminder: this is the Year of Cataloging Research. Do some, share some!
>
> Best regards,
> Jimmie
>
> Jimmie Lundgren
> Associate Chair & Contributed Cataloging Unit Head
> Cataloging & Metadata Dept.
> Smathers Library
> PO Box 117004
> University of Florida
> Gainesville, FL 32611-7004
> 352-273-2725
> 352-392-7365 (fax)
> jimlund_at_ufl.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:48 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Next next generation catalogs
>
> Like "modern" art, the idea of "Next Generation" catalogs is starting
> to feel dated. Instead of a daring project, it's become something of a
> term of art. The edges are fuzzy. But it embraces systems like
> Blacklight, SOPAC, Aquabrowser, Bibliocommons, Endeca catalogs and
> systems enhanced with LibraryThing for Libraries, and it involves
> ideas like faceted searching, social data, experimental, open-source
> development and simple Google-ish interfaces.
>
> There is, of course, a lot more to do here. Most catalogs "in the
> wild" are last-gen (or worse). And the ideas themselves are still
> being tested and refined.
>
> But, in my opinion, the Copernican moment has passed, and next-gen
> catalogs are the new normal. Some of the biggest ideas-like social
> features-have been completely misunderstood and misapplied by the big
> companies. But all the big companies now has a supposedly "next gen"
> catalog. Some are even good.
>
> So, ladies and gentleman, get out your crystal balls and tell me what
> is the "next" next gen?
>
> * What good ideas have yet to become mainstream?
> * What idea trends-mobile? ebooks?-should cause us to rethink things?
> * Is it time to decide that the next catalog is no catalog at all?
> * Is it Google? A kiosk? A cell phone? A WorldCat metastasis? Dying
> because the library is dying?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Tim
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 30 2010 - 11:43:58 EDT