Hi,
Todd Puccio <puccio_at_nova.edu> wrote:
> Well first off; Not all libraries are public libraries.
A non-sequitur; it doesn't change my argument in the slightest.
> Secondly :
> Not all users are "general public users". Who are they anyway ? Kids ?
> Adults ? Different levels of education ? Different levels of needs ?
> There is no one user for any particular library.
And even though this is true, how does that address my argument?
> The reference librarians at our library almost exclusively use the OPAC, not
> the technical side of the catalog. They are an OPAC users, too.
Sorry, but what does this even address? No one is arguing that OPACs
and catalogs and ILS don't exist and aren't in use, and we're
*especially* not arguing that a trained librarian with a PhD in
friggin' library systems can squeeze something useful out of these
tools. Again, I repeat; this is about getting away from systems
designs that only a librarian can love.
> Are you to suggest that we provide individual catalog interfaces for each
> kind of patron depending on the level of understanding and depending on
> their needs ?
Are you suggesting that one - and only one - interface into such a
broad set of users, needs and wants is perfectly fine for all things?
And if it wasn't clear enough, then yes, that's one interesting way of
dealing with the problem. Doing so is not technically hard, only
conceptually difficult for committees and conservative librarians to
understand.
> We do that already to some extent (Kid's Catalogs and Simple and Advanced
> search boxes), but how individualized would you suggest before we become
> patronizing to our patrons.
Straw-man argument. No one is arguing we should patronize anyone.
> How are these things determined ?
Let the user have control instead of you dictating how things should
be. (And don't try to argue that the catalog as a tool already do
this. No, no it does not. I can't use the catalog for most of the
stuff I would like to do)
> Self-evaluation by the patron, perhaps ? ie. "Please click on the button
> that best describes your library experience"
> OR
> A series of questions by the catalog ? ie. "Please answer these questions
> before continuing your catalog search"
> OR
> A reference librarian or systems librarians interviews the patron or
> examines some set of criteria and them places them in a category that will
> only display their personalized catalog.
>
> If we try that then we are placing our patrons in little pre-defined boxes
> and _not_ helping them break out of their boxes.
You're good at making straw-men arguments, I'll give you that (as I
haven't made any of these suggestions), and I can even understand why
you're doing so as a defense mechanism to change in these terrifying
times. However, countering the argument of "we need to evolve our
catalog to make us relevant to the future" is not very well met with
pointing out that it might be hard and / or difficult; the need still
persists in the face of its complexity.
>> If the catalog remains "just a catalog"
>> when it needs to be something else,
>
> If the catalog needs to be something else - then build something else.
> Stop trying to make the catalog something that it isn't.
And *this* attitude is why the library is dying, and also why no one
wants to help you out. Good luck with all that.
>> this will just kill off the librarianship ideals we're working to save.
>
> Which ideals are you talking about ?
You shouldn't really be asking me this, but something like "access to
information for all so as to gain knowledge", or in a more modern
context "making information available so knowledge can happen." It's
why we have libraries, remember?
> { that "all users" have a tool that can help provide them metadata access to
> the resources they need, which the library can provide ? }
No, this is a manifestation of a presupposed conceptual tool
librarians have cooked up in order to solve the ideals above, to
varying degrees of success. Please don't forget that librarianship is
*not* about the tools.
> FRBR is generalized because it takes a long view into the past and into the
> future.
Could you please put some meat and real meaning on the table instead
of this baloney?
> It has generalized goals because that is all it can and should do.
What does this even mean? *Who* says this is what it *should* do? Or
even all it can do? I'm starting to suspect you think FRBR is some
proven and generally agreed-upon model of how we as librarians want
and need to do things, which is a very scary thing.
> The catalog is a tool. Please don't blame a screwdriver for not being a
> wrench.
Again, with the metaphors. Yes, the catalog is a tool. It's just a crap one.
> The only question at hand is "Is this screwdriver the best functioning
> screwdriver it can be, if not, how can I improve it - to be a better
> screwdriver (not a better wrench) ? "
To which you have responded "It's a catalog. It shouldn't be anything
else, and if it needs to be something else, build something else,
don't touch the catalog! I loves it! It's miiiine! Myyyy
preciiiiiousssssssssss!"*
Regards,
Alex
* re-enactment of real events, although the names and characters have
been changed. :)
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Aug 11 2011 - 19:35:08 EDT