Web usability expert Jakob Neilson recently posted about why Web 2.0 is dangerous.
From a practical point of view, I quite agree with a lot of what he says. I mean, when you design a library website, you're not trying to create the next facebook. It's hard enough just to get users to use public library OPACs and online databases, let along start generating user-created content!
That said, usability is *always* going to be an issue, as long as technology changes. I often end up helping 30-something year old adults, who have little to no computer literacy skills, just read their email.
Which is where libraries step in.
My understanding of Neilson is that he'd have sites connect information with users by having the web content as simple as possible.
However, what I'd like to see is for libraries to be connecting users with information through creating users that have the skills to engage with Web 2.0 technology. Instead of saying "it's too complicated, make it simpler" we should be saying "our users have new things to learn, and we're going to find ways to help them learn so that they can get more out of our services."
After all, libraries are about challenging people to regularly learn something new, so that their lives can be enriched. And you're never too old - that's why it's called lifelong learning.
Because, like Web 2.0 - ignorance can be dangerous. You'll suddenly find yourself trapped in the stone age of technology. And at libraries, we want to help prevent that from happening to our users.
Post scriptum: Yes, I know I've deviated from Jakob Nielson's main point, which is basically "Don't believe the hype, because the costs may be greater than the return". But it just got me thinking about whether the same applies to libraries.
3 comments:
Hi Andrew,
I'm a usability analyst who works in a library, and who has worked on library systems on and off for the past 8 years.
I think you have misinterpreted the intent of Jakob Nielsen's most recent AlertBox (and indeed of most of his work). Usability isn't about dumbing down the content that a system contains, it's about making that content as easy to access as possible.
While I think it is admirable to offer users training with complex interfaces, it may also be futile.
Research demonstrates that users infrequently use help documentation available to them, and a study reported on at a CRIG meeting by Stephanie Foote indicated that this is especially true of library users -- they will not interrupt the task at hand to seek help. This means that it is a rare user who will actually find the information they are looking for if they are dependent on training given by a librarian to use an information system.
It is understandable, given the history of library interfaces, that libraries often respond with a "training" approach, after all, interfaces that librarians themselves have had to use have been profoundly unusable, and librarians are used to creating workarounds. Instead of workarounds, though, I would urge libraries to make a point of understanding usability, and applying it to those interfaces they have control over (for example their own websites and customisations of software provided by external vendors), and to put pressure on vendors to provide more usable systems -- training should only ever be required for very complex systems. And pressure actually does work, even for the largest of vendors -- Web of Science have recently dramatically improved their interface as a result of the release of the much more usable Scopus.
In my opinion, advocating for good usability should be part of librarianship: One of the principles of librarianship, in my understanding, is unfettered access to information, and requiring training to use an interface could be considered a fetter. Even if librarians don't support usability for that reason, though, usability (as pointed out in Nielsen's article) is good for business. When library customers have an alternative like Google, libraries have to offer something competitive -- and while the content is a big part of it, if the content is hidden behind an impenetrable interface, for most people it might as well not be there.
If you want ways to help your users learn about non-library packages (for example email) I suggest helping them select usable products, where possible, and task-focused teaching, where the library patron is tied to a particular product. Libraries are about challenging users to learn new things, but those things should never, ever be difficult just because no-one bothered to make them easy.
If you want to know more about usability, and the reasons for it, get in touch -- I'm always willing to help.
Hi Dana,
Thanks so much for your clarification - you've correctly asserted that I'm a little clueless on the topic, and it's these things that help me get my head around the stuff that they never taught us in Library School. :)
We could definitely use more experts such as yourself, because so far in my experience, usability has never come up as a priority. I've always encountered a "We'll make the best of what we've got." attitude, and worked at getting users trained toward using the systems, rather than trying to design systems that suit our users.
Reading your comment, it actually saddens me a lot, because I'm becoming more and more aware at how underdeveloped the organisations are that I've worked for are, and how inadequate my support has been whilst trying to establish my skills as a professional.
Because I want to learn all this stuff properly, but it never seems to be a priority in the workplace.
Post a Comment