[Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

Thu May 29 15:32:59 EDT 2003

Peace, everyone ...he'll never understand what the LIS profession is and is
about until he becomes a member. He is so much an "other" however, that it's
probably not going to happen even if he were to attempt the feat. We are
thus left with this straw parody that he has constructed for demolition
purposes.

That having been said, I do recommend reading a chapter from the 1986 (yes,
from the 1980's!) ARIST entitled "Information Needs and Uses" by Brenda
Dervin and Micheal Nilan (p 3-33) in which thoughtful and accessible
criticism is made about how LIS practice and research was performed up until
that time. This article contains the clarion call for "proper" user centered
approaches for both LIS practitioners and researchers. The money quote
describing the state of LIS research at that time:

"System orientations generate the research, which in turn generates findings
that reify system orientations."

The research inspired by this article has produced tremendous amounts of
(mostly) useful qualitative and quantitative work that has benefited (most)
information professionals in their native work environments.

btw, the research on spotting book thieves pre-dates the publication of this
article!!  ;-)  Fortunately, it is hard has hell to steal a *link* to the
online edition of a book!!!

slm

>
> Jonathan wrote:
> >| HCI/IS (as in the IS in LIS) was applying social science
> >| methods to information system design questions long
> >| before *ethnographers* realized their methods could be
> >| used to test *web sites*
>
>
> I think it would be helpful to everyone to re-arrange the above
> statement:
>
> Yes, HCI/IS have been applying social science methods to information
> system design, but, it was NOT before ethnographers realized their own
> methods!!
>
> Ethnographers were, obviously, always aware their methods could be used
> to test Web sites (indeed, any social activity) -- and -- ethnographic
> study pre-dates any HCI/IS. Only superficial barriers, created by the
> 'groups' involved, prevented *sharing* and *communication* between the
> two in order to achieve and realize common goals.
>
>
> >| Your comments valorize "field research" over the full
> >| panoply of user-research methods that derive more
> >| generically from qualitative research techniques
>
> Which comments?
>
> Nevertheless, going out-into-the-field is the most direct and accurate
> research method. I won't disagree with that.
>
> Face-to-face, so to speak, in the natural environment is always,
> naturally, better!
>
>
> >| Interfaces have been horrible since day one, but
> >| that doesn't mean that librarians haven't been trying
> >| to fix them, using user-centered design methods, since
> >| day two
>
> Well, as I think anyone who can identify with my
> go-to-the-library-and-ask-a-librarian example should illustrate, the
> skill of the librarian is, always has been, and continues thru teaching
> to be, *conciliatory.* I cannot deny that any profession contains
> individuals who have specialized interests. Obviously, if your
> profession is sweeping floors and you observe a lot of dirt coming in
> the building thru one particular entrance and notice that particular
> entrance is missing a door-mat, well, you put a door mat there and save
> a lot of unnecessary sweeping but that doesn't mean you're "using
> user-centered design methods," that you've "been trying...since day
> two," etc. and the rest of it. You're just a human-being. You don't want
> to sweep so hard. You want to get home to your beautiful wife and
> children, watch TV, get-off-your-feet, etc.
>
> In short, I think *you* are one who is valorizing. You're making
> librarians and their profession into a great deal more than they even
> are today, never mind the past. Anybody can go to their local library
> and test this themselves. Go to your local library, go up to the
> librarian, ask them how they've been trying to introduce 'user-centered
> design methods' into their library. They will look at you like you're
> from the moon! "Huh?" "What?" "Can I help you find a book?" That's what
> they'll say. Does that story sound familiar? Let's be serious about
> this, now, and not valorize.
>
>
> >| All the classification "systems" that seem to really bother
> >| your postmodern sensibilities _were never intended for
> >| consumption by the end-user_.  They were originally
> >| designed by librarians, for librarians -- for librarians who
> >| were to spend considerable time mastering them
>
> Well, this is my point about these systems, isn't it? That they have no
> use to the actual user. That is, they are practically useless.
>
>
> >| The point is that librarians themselves were supposed to
> >| be the interfaces between information and users
>
> Librarians were only mediators to prevent stealing, so that the public
> would not run off with all the books! The librarian profession, from the
> beginning, was chiefly for inventory control.
>
>
> >| librarian is the...interface
>
> That's great, except there is a better way. Machines can perform tasks
> much faster and more reliably than a Jane or Joe.
>
>
> >| We should completely isolate the user from
> >| the actual organization of the collection
>
> You should, rather, completely and without delay or circumstance,
> retrieve the item requested -- and that is good organization.
>
>
> >| [Librarians] are trained to listen very carefully, elicit clarifying
> >| information, and then *iteratively* and *interactively* [perform
> >| their professional duties]
>
> The same can be said of the floor-sweeper I talked about earlier. These
> are human qualities, found everywhere in all professions, not just
> 'special magic' held by librarians.
>
>
> >| This aspect of librarianship is the most closely allied
> >| with the more broad purpose of the 'user experience design'
>
> Again, I think you must realize here how you are valorizing your
> profession. There is no harm in taking some pride in what you do, but,
> to be serious, you are grasping for some kind of super-recognition.
>
>
> >| The equivalent of the reference interview is still sadly
> >| missing from many online user experiences
>
> Sure. Still, when are you going to interview my floor-sweeper?
>
>
> >| I for one have gladly added ethnomethodology to my toolset
> >| of "means" to "the end" of a good user experience
>
> Well, just be careful how that tent is pegged-down. Ethnomethodology is
> not a check-list to followed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
> Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>