Evidence 1 of Competency J
In which I show my understanding of the fundamental concepts of information-seeking behavior and their consequences for a web site development. The text on this page is the relevant excerpt from the Final Exam of the Information and Society class. Below is the link to the full document, which consists four essay questions.
This document is in iPaper format, which requires ADOBE FLASH PLAYER to view it. Clicking on [PDF] link the document will open in ADOBE ACROBAT READER.
Library patron
looking for a book in
Carmel Valley Branch,
SAN DIEGO PUBLIC LIBRARY system
Photo Vlasta Radan, 2006.
Q4. Imagine an adaptable library computer system where individual patrons can, to their liking, "adjust" the interaction style (buttons vs. menus; touch screens vs. command lines, etc.), colors, screen size, font size, language and vocabulary of the system. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a system in a public and an academic library?
Davies (1974) observed in the context of voluntary libraries that as "bookish people seek out their own kind, the number of people interested in books would usually be over-estimated." (p. 14) I often find that it is the same with technology. People that know technology and are comfortable with using computers want to control that environment. They like individually adjustable interactive programs and assume every else likes the same. That includes the creators of the programs and interfaces so they carry that assumption to their interface design – the more options the better. Unfortunately that is not the how the majority of the population approaches technology – the proverbial problems with making TV video players work as we desire is the epitome of the problem. Many researches like one done by Bishop et al. (2000) fund out that 90% of the people use default settings and never learn and do not want to use advanced features. They are interested only in end results and wish to get there with the least pain and effort. Interacting with the interface is not why we use the interface.
Advantages of the individually adjustable interfaces are rather obvious. By the ability of the program to be individually configured, it would better serve individual needs and style of the user. The performance of the program could be maximized and the user would go home happy. However observation of the users finds out that simplicity and easiness of use is what most of the people desire from interface programs. Nielsen (1993) and Roy Molich, a well-known industrial designer theorist, has suggested the following guidelines when designing the interfaces:
- Simple and natural dialogue: Dialogues should not contain information that is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. All information should appear in a natural and logical order.
- Speak the users' language: The dialogue should be expressed clearly in words, phrases, and concepts familiar to the user, rather than in system-oriented terms.
- Minimize the users' memory load: The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
- Consistency: Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
- Feedback: The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
- Clearly marked exits: Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue.
- Shortcuts: Accelerators—unseen by the novice user—may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users.
- Good error messages: They should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
- Prevent errors: Even better than good error messages is a careful design that prevents a problem from occurring in the first place.
- Help and documentation: Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, be focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large (Nielsen, 1993, p.20).
These guidelines take into account what Bishop et al. (2000) find – that people have well established systems, ways and means to acquire, assess and use information and that they are not willing to surrender the comfort of the known for the sake of few gadgets. The goal of a well-designed interface should be to minimize the need of the user to interact. Their research finds in particular that people did not use, or did not notice advanced searching features. To use an advanced feature, it is necessary to learn how the program works, and researchers are finding over and over again that people are quite unwilling to read instructions, familiarize themselves with the interface, and do all other smart things to be able to use the system to its fullest.
Bishop and his colleagues find that people are unwilling to disrupt "familiar routine" for sake of the more options. The key to the Microsoft success is not necessarily in "adjustability" of their programs, but understanding of people's inertia in learning new tricks - all their programs share similar interface, commands and shortcuts. The attempt to anticipate any possibility sometimes makes a system so unfriendly for casual users that it is simply abandoned following Mooer's Law: An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it (Austin, 2001).
Reference:
Austin, B. (June 2001). Mooers’ Law: In and Out of Context. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 52(8). Retrieved May 17, 2005 from http://spot.colorado.edu/~norcirc/Mooers.html
Bishop, P. at al. (2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 394-413.
Davies, D. W. (1974). Public Libraries as Culture and Social Centers: The Origin of the Concept. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston: AP Professional. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from http://www.useit.com/jakob/useengbook.html
This web site was developed to satisfy the graduation requirements for
the School for Library and Information Science at San Jose State University California
Text, design, and digital imaging by Vlasta Radan