In this same vein, I just finished reading an article in the latest College & Research Libraries (Mar 2010, no. 2) "What are they learning? Pre-and post-assessment for LIBR I 100, Introduction to Library Research" by Jon Hufford. They did tests of students before and after an information literacy course.
What I found interesting were the results concerning users' understanding of the library catalog e.g.:
"What is the least likely resource to use to find citations to articles?
A - library's online catalog
B - electronic databases
C - internet
D - search engines
e - periodical indexes
Pre: 6% chose a. Post: 28% chose a.
Another:
"It is possible to find full-text magazine articles in the library's online catalog." True-False
Pre: 18% chose False. Post: 22% chose falso.
And most telling:
"Which of the following kinds of information can be found in the Library's online catalog.
A - journal articles
B - journals the library owns
C - books on a certain topic
d - book reviews
e - sound recordings the library owns
Pre: 4% chose b,c,e. Post: 5% chose b,c,e. (I would have emphasized "catalog records" for journals, books, etc. the library owns, not the books themselves)
In fact, from this entire report, the students appear to show a much greater understanding of the digital materials and tools than the traditional library materials and tools. This mirrors my own experience. Young people (most people?) don't know what they are searching when they search Google vs. Google Books vs. Lexis-Nexis vs. an OPAC ... [et al.]. When I try to explain the differences of what they are searching in each database when they enter text into the search box, I see they are struggling, and I find it extremely complex to explain. I still believe that the traditional library catalog is becoming increasingly strange to our patron community.
I have tried to solve some of this with the Extend Search in my catalog to at least make it simpler to search all of these different places, but you are right: there needs to be a lot of serious work in interface design.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Schlumpf
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:13 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [NGC4LIB] User interace design and trust
The little faux pas that I committed yesterday by mixing my personal email
with the ngc4lib list sheds a little light on user interface issues. I've
been thinking today why this happened. It was late and I was tired last
night. But I think part of the problem is the Gmail interface hides too
much, and makes it too easy to make such mistakes. Now I am not trusting
it. Is it really doing what I intend? Am I really replying to that person
only, or am I replying to the group as well? The Gmail interface isn't
clear about that. I actually have to take a look at the raw email headers
to verify that what I intended actually happened. And one can only do that
after the fact.
I think this can be applied to catalog interfaces as well. Is it delivering
what the user intends, or is it trying to do too much behind a thick layer
of abstraction that makes a lot of assumptions about the user's intentions?
Trust is a big issue with user interface design.
Peter Schlumpf
http://www.avantilibrarysystems.com
Received on Wed Mar 31 2010 - 06:04:39 EDT