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

[Derek R]

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.