Library Web Chic

Today a representative from HW Wilson came to visit and demo some of their products for our library. We have been considering switching some databases that we subscribe to to different vendors in order to gain some cost savings. There were some things that I really liked about what I saw in the Wilson interfaces. Perhaps the thing I liked the most was the default search is what I would call a “Smart Keyword” search. What it does is if you put in a search for “death penalty” it looks at the cross references in the thesaurus for that database and knows that the appropriate term is “capital punishment” and turns the items that match that as well. This is a great idea. Particularly for database which have cumbersome controlled vocabulary and no fulltext. Searchers get relevant results without having to know crazy librarian/indexer speak. This could be even better if such a search pulled relevant related terms and allow users to try these as well. Particularly if the number of results returned is low. I know some people would say that users can do this themselves by click on subject terms in a given record. However, I believe that is a step that most users won’t take. We need to push these sort of suggestions to the user in a way that is noticeable and doesn’t require them to hunt around. The rep also mentioned that Wilson was thinking about incorporating a “did you mean” into their search interface. All I can say is “its about time somebody realized this is what users want!”

All of this goes hand in hand with an article in Library Journal by Todd Miller entitled “In defense of stupid users” which is profiled on LibTalk Blog. The article makes a great analogy about how most people feel about their cars and the way non-librarian users typically feel about search engines.

I have no interest in auto mechanics. When my car breaks down (which doesn’t happen because it’s a Honda), I take it to a mechanic. I am content to confine my knowledge of the automotive process to pointing the car and stepping on the gas. My primary interest is arriving at my destination safely, with minimal hassle. Does that make me a stupid user? Could be, but I’m still not going to strap on a tool belt no matter how much I’m taunted by macho mechanics.

This sentiment has been expressed by several other librarians including Roy Tennant who in a workshop I attended said that “only librarians like to search, everyone else like to find.” I’m on the same side of the fence as well and there are times when I am using a database that isn’t one I use frequently at reference and is terribly difficult that I wish it was as easy as Google. I wonder that is I’m having a hard time how the students must be feeling. I’ve had moments where students have given me the “oh god thank you” look when I’ve helped them because they’ve worked on something for five hours with no success and I got what they wanted in five minutes. Such moments are both rewarding (because I like helping people and seeing them happy) but at the same time frustrating. Our users shouldn’t have to go through information anguish to get what they want. They shouldn’t have to be held hostage by information system because they don’t think like a librarian.

Such experiences have helped to reinforce my personal goal to make information simpler and easier for people to find. Sometimes I feel like this is a tremendous challenge in which technology is working againist me. However, I understand that I can’t change my users ideas and expectations about how they believe that information should be found or in what format it should exist. I don’t see that as my job. I’m sure that this perspective differs from some of my colleagues, which is why library systems and libraries are having difficulties transitioning so that users can interact with them without stress or mediation.