[WEB4LIB] Re: Library web site organization

[Mary E. Faccioli]

In my opinion, if you want to know why some think this profession is a sinking ship it's largely because of this idea that we must "force" users to behave in ways contrary to their nature, and also contrary to ways other "non-library" information sources provide.  

Mary Beth Faccioli
Georgia State University Pullen Library


>>> Julia Schult <jschult at elmira.edu> 11/01/00 11:42AM >>>
Tim Smith wrote:

> My question--you surely saw it coming--then is whether it would work to
> arrange a library's web site like Yahoo or LII. Rather than splitting
> databases, reference sites, etc. into separate categories on the home page,
> use a top-level subject hierarchy, with functional or format categories
> underneath. I doubt that most of our users think in terms of format first.
> It's pretty abstract, and is not entirely satisfactory anyway: where do you
> categorize a multi-format database?thinking about and mulling over with some
> of my colleagues for awhile now,

One important point to keep in mind is that there is a real difference in what
you get with different formats.  We intentionally force our users at the start
of their information search to think about what they want to get out of it.  As
a college, we want our users to learn information seeking skills, and part of a
search is figuring out what kind of information you want, not just how to phrase
the question.

To make it concrete: the techniques for finding a book, an article, or a web
page are different; the type of information on each is different even when the
subject matter is the same.  Therefore it is an important part of
information-seeking behavior to figure out which of those you want.  All of
those formats provide "in-depth" information.  For quick reference, there is
much less of a difference between a subscription database (Britannica) and a web
site (Wordsmyth) in how they operate.

So on our site, we first force the user to think about what they want to get at
the end of their search: a Book, an Article, a Web Page, or a link to a quick
answer (ready reference).  Trouble is, "ready reference" is a term librarians
use, not the general public.  Better phrasing would be "Quick lookup" or "Quick
Answer Sources" or something like that.

Once the user has clear in their own mind which format they want, they can go
ahead and think about subjects, keywords, etc.; but it is clear to me that
defining the information goal in terms of format first will help their search.
At the U. of Illinois, we taught the undergrads to think in terms of "Is your
information need for A) In-Depth, B) Background, or C) quick factual; if it is
in-depth do you need 1) Background, 2) Contemporary info, or 3) Retrospective
information?"  Different sources (book vs. article) give different kinds of
information.

---Julia E. Schult
Access/Electronic Services Librarian
Elmira College
Jschult at elmira.edu