No subject

decisions about things. We can *know,* conclusively, what certain
actions on our part can happen to effect what we have discovered to be
true, and we can further test/research those additions to be even sure
about them.

This is entirely different than sweeping-things-under-the-rug, to return
slightly to our floor-sweeper. We have no interest in being
*conciliatory.* We are not interested in appeasement, compatibility, or
friendship. Goodwill and pacification is not our goal. These are
'quick-fixes' which may help you in the short-term, but move you no
closer to achievement. They are what they are -- a concession to
overcome hostility. It is a very political game, actually.

So, when I use the word 'conciliatory' I am responding, with accuracy,
to other people who have propped-up this idea of 'helping the user' to
unhealthy heights. I am responding, with generosity, to a community of
IAs who may have gotten the wrong idea about things, and who, perhaps
might benefit from a different perspective.


>| Not all ethnographers would know what 
>| 'user-centered design' was either, right?  So?

As with any group, ethnographers have their own terminologies and
different schools-of-thought. Ethnomethodologists might refer to
'user-centered design' as 'recipient design,' for instance.


>| Librarians, in general, as a community have been
>| familiar with user-centered design principles (both
>| explicitly and implicitly) for a good long while

So has the floor-sweeper, as I demonstrated with his floor-mat
observation. Again, I think you are trying to give more credit (at the
expense of others), to librarians in particular, than they are really
worth (this is not a knock on librarians).


>| So you are not even close to hitting the mark here

What are you talking about? I think you are just trying to be contrary
for the sake of it. We agree formal methodologies have limited use and
may, at many times, be unnecessary by observing and querying the
environment and its actors.


>| Reference librarians (and many other types of
>| librarians, such as indexers) *are* information interfaces

Yes, and they are conciliatory. But this has nothing to do with how to
make the whole process better for everyone, does it? We are straying off
the topic we started with.


>| [Classification "systems"] *are* extremely useful -- 
>| to this day -- to librarians. And librarians are useful
>| to users as a result

Well, this the whole point of our user-testing and user-research, isn't
it? We can challenge assumptions and perhaps find a better way. There's
a lot of bureaucracy in your system, isn't there? There might be a
better way. Let's see.