[Sigia-l] Dale Mead Faceted Classification

[Richard Hill]

[Re-posted for Dale Mead to avoid HTML version. Dick Hill]

 >Something we have not discussed about FC is whether it is easier, harder or
 >about the same for an end-user to comprehend. There are a bunch of factors
 >in that, I'm sure like type of search, type of content-body etc, but I'd
 >love to hear anecdotes if anyone has 'em.
 >
 >Do people grok FC? Do people even think about classification systems enough
 >to form a mental model when in information retrieval mode?

Some quick points on faceted classification.
1. Not all sites benefit from complex navigation structures. The 
contrapositive of Bates' point 5 "Ignoring size-sensitivity of information 
retrieval databases" is that small collections may be better served by 
simpler navigation. It isn't necessarily smart for me to organize my home 
library by Library of Congress Classification and LCSH.
2. In sites where facets are appropriate, the customer's need for a 
particular facet also falls under the Bradford distribution. Not all facets 
are equal and, therefore, should not be exposed equally to the customer. 
You shouldn't take them to a screen that asks them to choose between facets 
in order to proceed; you give them the facet that you know is preferred and 
give the customer the ability to choose an alternative. Sometimes, if there 
is a strong #2 facet, I may give it limited exposure in a sidebar.
3. I always wonder after user testing whether people ever grok anything 
about what we do. I often think about our task as getting the right 
information to where people are going to decide to look. Trying to get 
people to look where I decided to put the information is hard.




Executive Director
American Society for Information Science and Technology
1320 Fenwick Lane, Suite 510
Silver Spring, MD  20910
FAX: (301) 495-0810
PHONE: (301) 495-0900

http://www.asis.org