AP study

[K.G. Schneider]

> The counter to that--as the study in this article shows--is that most
> users don't make effective use of search engines. That's where they are.
> So the answer is yes, we either train them or work to create search
> engines that will lead users beyond the 2 words/first page of results
> circuit.

Actually, in reading the article, I had two thoughts. 

1. I'd like to see the data.

2. The article didn't say that users weren't finding what they were looking
for. There was a leap from user behavior to conclusions about user results;
I'm unclear whether that is the article's author or the book itself. The
article said users used one or two terms and stopped at the first page. I do
that quite often myself, because I know I will find what I'm looking for.
Did the book conclude that users aren't finding what they are looking for? 

I've had a lot of novice users direct me through Google searches that might
not have been the way I was taught to search but work just fine for them,
and however Rube Goldberg their devices, they get what they are looking for
in ways that satisfy them.

We spend a lot of time talking about users who can't find what they are
looking for, and yet, users as a tribe are pretty smart. They gravitate
toward the easiest tools, they figure out how to get results that satisfy
their immediate needs, they know to ignore the "hundreds of thousands of
results" and focus on what they are looking for. (I had novice users advise
me of the site based on the Ashlee Simpson SNL debacle just hours after it
went up.) 

I'd be curious to see an interface design approach that started from the
assumption that the user is not broken and that he or she basically groks
the Internet. but then, that would hose most ILS interfaces right off the
bat.

Karen G. Schneider
kgs at bluehighways.com