[WEB4LIB] Re: Library web site organization

[Dan Marmion]

I have to agree with Mary Beth.  With all due respect to Julia Schult, and I
certainly do understand from the traditional academic librarian point of view
that this approach teaches better skills, I think we are driving people away
from libraries when we try to impose our sense of how it ought to be done.  We
librarians need to realize that the people we are trying to attract (and don't
kid yourself -- we have to attract them, because they are no longer a captive
audience) have too many options available to them.  Whatever we may think about
the relative merits of our sites versus non-library sites is moot.  If we turn
them off, and thus turn them away, what good is that to either of us?

Dan Marmion

"Mary E. Faccioli" wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Daniel Keith Marmion           email: dmarmion at nd.edu
Associate Director for Information Systems and Access
University of Notre Dame Libraries  http://lib.nd.edu
221 Hesburgh Library, Notre Dame, Indiana  46556-5629
voice: (219) 631-3811             fax: (219) 631-6772
Editor: _Information Technology and Libraries_ (LITA)

           "It's all about access"