[Web4lib] Innovation: NYT article on Dewey-lessArizona publiclibrary

[Pons, Lisa (ponslm)]

  In any innovative endeavor, one should ask, what is gained. In the
article, it seems that they are trying to serve their patrons to make it
easier to "browse". And they say their patrons appreciate it, so-
abandoning the tried and true to better serve your customers seems
fairly innovative to me.

As someone who managed bookstores for 8 years, I can say that their
system doesn't work totally great either. 
Sure I can browse fiction,but what if I am interested in historical
fiction only? I am stuck browsing titles ("Hmnnn, that sounds like
something on the civil war"), or as someone suggested, "judging a book
by it's cover". (As an aside, I can tell you nothing sells a book better
than a great cover!").

To me, as Karen suggested, I think one needs to start with the goal, and
some considerations- 
1- what is the size of the collection?2-what's our mission?

Etc...

As a large academic library doing a good number of interlibrary loans,
staff need to be able to find a specific item.

On the other hand, as a library user, I love to take a break and go to
the stacks and browse- but as a non-mls techie library person, I
sometimes get a little confused- I mean I know where english literature
is now but...

If we want to make our libraries more "browsable", why couldn't we have
signs that say "English Literature", "Ohio History" and more on the end
of our stacks in addition to the dewey numbers. This would seem like a
win-win for staff and users. Can we arrange layout for browsing, not for
dewey? Could we make brochures and online guides for "browsing the
library"? 

Just thoughts from a future MLS student.

Lisa Pons-Haitz 


<snipped>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:30 AM
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Innovation: NYT article on 
> Dewey-lessArizona publiclibrary
> 
> I don't think one has to be a Luddite or a fuddy-duddy to to 
> be a bit underwhelmed by the "innovation" described in the 
> article. I suppose if your library experience in stuck 10 or 
> 20 years past, you might be surprised by what's described in 
> the article but what's really unique here? The article starts 
> off with "there is not a hint of a card catalog." 
>