[Web4lib] Innovation: NYT article on Dewey-less Arizona publiclibrary

[Karen Harker]

Because the original purpose of using any topical-based classification or shelving system was to group material by subject, the level of classification should be partially dependent on the size and scope of the collection, as well as the intended purpose of the collection.  A very small general purpose collection, say of a small public library, would likely not need a very granular classification system, not only because it is small and therefore easy to scan the few books on a specific topic, but also because it is easier to fulfill Ranganathan's laws, particularly #2 and 3 (every reader his/her book; every book its reader).  
 
The larger the collection or the more specialized the scope, the harder it is to fulfill these laws, because the more books there are to scan.  It would be quite interesting to find out how well libraries "obey" these laws, especially as they abandon some of the more time-tested solutions.
 
 
 
 
Karen R. Harker, MLS, MPH
UT Southwestern Medical Library
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas, TX  75390-9049
214-648-8946
http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/library/ 

>>> On 7/15/07 at 6:24 PM, in message <4c5c30910707151624p37db73e4tdc34fa004e11e19 at mail.gmail.com>, "Sharon Foster" <fostersm1 at gmail.com> wrote:
Since they adopted the bookstore model, I would imagine that their
on-line catalog is similar to that of Border's, in that it directs the
user to a floor, a section, and a particular label on a shelf in that
section. Then the books would be arranged by author (as much as they
are in any bookstore). I wish more large and multi-story libraries had
a floor map integrated into their catalog. Lacking a floor map, I've
frequently had to traverse an entire floor at my local academic
library before finding the subject I was looking for.

A lot of public libraries may be heading in this direction already,
whether they realize it or not. In my one and a half years of working
in libraries,I've noticed that fiction (as distinct from classical
literature) is always broken out into a special section all its own,
often further subdivided into mysteries and science fiction and
fantasy. Travel books are often in their own section. Books of local
interest may have a separate section regardless of the subject matter.
And of course any decent library has good signage identifying the
subject matter in plain English in addition to, or instead of, the
Dewey number.

I think that any system is a good system if it allows the patrons to
browse to their heart's content, and the patrons *and* the librarians
can find any particular book on the shelf without too much effort. I
wonder if maybe the most disturbing aspect of this library's
organization is that it doesn't require 3 or 6 credits of graduate
study to understand and use. Granted that there are experienced
library patrons who do know the Dewey system, but at its heart it is a
system designed by and for librarians. The average patron has no clue
what to make of the average Dewey number. And then there are the
numbers that got shoehorned in because of the 19th century Western
bias of the Dewey system, so that we end up with DCC numbers with 6 or
7 or 8 digits after the decimal point. I supposed an experienced
cataloger can look at one of those and know immediately what the
subject matter is. But I started library school as a late mid-life
career change, and I'm pretty sure that I'll never know DCC that well.
I can, however, find my way around the local Border's and Barnes &
Noble without having to ask too many directions.


On 7/15/07, Brian Gray <mindspiral at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering the same thing. Were they still using a card catalog?
>
> I do not see the problem switching the classification it serves the
> need of their users. Does anyone know how the books are labeled now
> and how you do find a specific book within a subject area? I cannot
> tell from the pictures within the story. The article stated people did
> not know what the numbers meant, but there has to be a new system they
> are going to need to know now.
>
> The people no search by subject on the computer. Where are these being
> derived from? Is the library defining their own or pulling from
> another source? How much extra work have they created for staff?
>
> Brian Gray
> mindspiral at gmail.com 
>
>
> On 7/15/07, B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Forgot to mention...I found this to be a rather odd statement by the authors of the article:
> >
> > "So at the 24,000-square-foot Perry Branch, there is not a hint of a card catalog. (Mr. Courtright says most people do not know what the numbers mean anyway.) Visitors may instead search for books using an automated computer system..."
> >
> > As if this was the first library to do away with the card catalog and allow users to "search for books using an automated computer system"?? Wonder when was the last time the authors had visited a library?
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org 
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/ 
>


-- 
Sharon M. Foster, B.S., J.D., 0.5 * (MLS)
F/OSS Evangelist
Cheshire Public Library
104 Main Street
Cheshire, CT  06410
http://www.cheshirelibrary.org ( http://www.cheshirelibrary.org/ )
My library school portfolio: http://home.southernct.edu/~fosters4/ 

Any opinions expressed here are entirely my own.
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org 
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/