[Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models

[Derek R]

Victor wrote:

> Has Jakob been lurking?  :)
>
> Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, June 30, 2003:
> Information Foraging: Why Google Makes People Leave
> Your Site Faster
>
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030630.html


I wouldn't mind talking about this.

I am particularly interested in the Alertbox *title* -- namely -- 'Why
Google Makes People Leave Your Site Faster' as a definition/consequence
of 'Information Foraging.'

It is curious Jakob would put this yin/yang, good/bad spin on the
foraging science as it would appear to knock http://google.com/
technologies while, at the same time, endorsing them.


:: Optimal food-gathering behavior is all that's left ::

'Behaving like wild beasts in the jungle,' is not a metaphor I
particularly like, but, at least the metaphor understands the axiom of
self-preservation: 'suboptimal behaviors result in starvation.' 

Even if it might, as Jakob notes, 'sound like a joke,' the jungle
metaphor rings true in explaining to Web Designers, Developers, and
Architects alike the idea of *User-Centered* techniques as being
paramount to success. This is to say, that whatever you choose to create
(be it a big Web property, or small), the primary goal MUST be to offer
'what is useful,' and, as a consequence, shun/remove what is
circumstantial, trivial, or otherwise unnecessary to the task/objective
the user arrives onsite with.

Adoption of User-Centered techniques would appear to endorse vernacular
understanding of one's own users, but, even *more* so vernacular
understanding of your own business offering -- i.e. what your business
offers in content, experience, interaction, etc.. to the user.

I say 'vernacular' because just leaving all-the-details to
self-proclaimed 'experts' who bandy about ubiquitous 'deliverables'
which claim to 'account-for-all' and hold 'the secrets' about Web Users
and Web Content usage is more than a little over-zealous and assertive. 

If you need a team of scientists to explain your business, what you are
offering is far removed from a mainstream audience (i.e. you're
specialized beyond general interest or use). It would do well for
everyone to remember the perception of the Internet as 'difficult to use
or learn.'

Not to knock the fine and arduous work many Information Architects have
genuinely engaged in to refine categorization, 'best bets,' controlled
vocabularies, etc... but there must be some recognition of the *limits*
of 'helping the user.' In other words, the 'Art of Giving Directions' is
rooted in accuracy, brevity, and relevance, so that too much explanation
is a beginner's mistake which ultimately results in confusion. Sooner or
later you are going to have to *commit* and say "this is this," stop
playing games, and reveal it to them. Take Jakob's word for it:
simplicity is king.

Which reminds us again of Jakob's title: 'Why Google Makes People Leave
Your Site Faster.'

In short: Web Users don't live anywhere in particular (thanks to
http://google.com/) -- they are kings of everywhere -- and are not
subjected, or confined, to particular 'ways of doing things' or 'ways of
existence' (i.e. controlled paths). Web Users go 'where they want, when
they want.' 

This simply means each person is looking-out-for-their-own-interest, and
will not jump-through-hoops just because you demand it of them. If your
Web site is not consistent with Web Users' expectations they *will* move
on, being king-of-all and able to rest their heads anywhere.

So, therefore, attempts to control Web Users through clever schemas of
difficult or ambitious taxonomies is problematic right-off-the-start. In
short, *reference* is a tough strategy to implement -- one is better off
with a simple product image the customer can point to and say "That's
it!" 

To ask Web Users to take the time to explain themselves (i.e. go through
categories) or listen to you explain yourself (i.e. submit to
taxonomies) in an online environment appears counter-productive given
http://goggle.com/ search technology and short attention spans (i.e.
users often look at only the first page of search results ~ laziness,
ruthless).

This is the Information Age, after all, and NOT the Reference Age. This
is a key difference I would like to discuss in earnest. 

Please don't misunderstand me as not respecting and honoring what
Library Information Science brings to the table. It is just that what is
being cleared off the table by LIS -- namely *presentation* in favor of
'reference' -- is disheartening, and, I feel, misguided.

One can openly talk about 'Information Scent,' but really, to me, that
is just quantitative-presentation. I fear 'quantizing' holism (making
systemic parts of a whole) is a poor methodology simply because it loses
sight of original concern. Things get lost in translation; reference is
complicated (and time-consuming).

So, I would like to discuss this, if there are any interested, and they
can perhaps put their reputations and patented theories aside for a
moment to facilitate discussion.