Netspeed 06 A4

Document Sample
Netspeed 06 A4 Powered By Docstoc
					So Why Do You Want Federated Searching?
Presented by Susan Beatty Helen Clarke University of Calgary Netspeed 2006, October 18th

In the beginning: Why are we here today?






To take a look at our mental models of the user and ourselves To challenge our thinking on the needs of the user and of ourselves To consider how we might achieve better Federated Searching product design

We can’t know why we want it unless we know who will use it


How do we describe our users and our roles?



How is this reflected in software design?
If we look to the future who will our users be and how will our roles change? What could Metasearching 2.0 look like?





Our agenda today
 


 



What was our investigation ? What were our results? Is there a better way? Group work Feedback Conclusions

Where it all Started :: Federated Searching Symposium Feb 2006

10 groups discussed the positive and negative aspects of the features as they related to the claims statements and how to mitigate the negative impacts
http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/files/F ederated_Search_Symposium_Notes. pdf

What Happened at the Symposium ?


Vendors and Librarians




discussed the relative merits of the features without defensive language came to a better mutual understanding of the capacities and outcomes of Federated Searching



Conclusions
 

There are no perfect tools There are many variations on ―user‖ and ―library‖

We simply assume that the way we see things is the way they really are or the way they should be. And our attitudes and behaviors grow out of these assumptions.

Stephen R. Covey

After all, when you come right down to it, how many people speak the same language even when they speak the same language?
Russell Hoban

Why should we care?


Librarians serve as intermediaries between designers and users. Explicit, non-judgemental and accurate user models improve products.



Task Product Cycle


People discover new uses that designers never anticipated Designers then need to re-create products to meet these new uses People take the new products and discover new uses





Changing the Bathwater
How does the user envisioned in the Symposium compare with the user assumptions implicit in Library 2.0 and Web 2.0? Are current vendor models of the user reflected in the language of metasearching vendors?
What would metasearching look like if it were designed for the Web 2.0 user?

New Bathwater :: Web 2.0
Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004, refers to a supposed secondgeneration of Internet-based services — such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies — that let people collaborate and share information online in previously unavailable ways. - Web 2.0, Wikipedia

More new bathwater Library 2.0
Llibrary services are constantly updated and revaluated to best serve library users. Library 2.0 also attempts to harness the library user in the design and implementation of library services by encouraging feedback and participation. Proponents of this concept expect that ultimately the Library 2.0 model for service will replace traditional, one-directional service offerings that have characterized libraries for centuries. - Library 2.0, Wikipedia

Unpacking the Texts


Federated Searching Software Claims and Features
Report from the TAL Symposium



What is web 2.0?
Tim O’Reilly



Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0
Ken Chad and Paul Miller



Serials review v. 32, no. 3 2006
Series of articles on Metasearch products

Methodology :: WEFT QDA


An open source tool for content analysis
http://www.pressure.to/qda/

“Weft QDA is an easy-to-use tool to assist in the analysis of textual data such as interview transcripts, written texts and fieldnotes. “

Methodology


Chose from the texts words/phrases that reflected / described the user or the librarian Sorted phrases into two sections – User Actions / Librarian Actions





Sorted recurring concepts/phrases into categories
Sorted categories by frequency of concepts/phrases



Library Model: Symposium
 

Librarian as teacher Librarian as support to research


Depth of information is important
Needs return on investment Values simplicity and ranking Librarian knows best



Librarian as moderator and manager





Library model: Library 2.0
 

Library is flexible Library has traditional values


enabler, library collaboration, standards
Centralized and open, seeks participation Theatre of creativity (previously fed creativity)



Library as web 2.0
 


 

Library is ubiquitous Library is competitive Library is a mash-up, non-geographic

Library model: Web 2.0
 


 




Library has data Library enables interoperability Library enables participation Community works from edge to centre Library operations are as change agent Library is middle man- invisible agent Library is competitive, non-monopolistic and web-based

Library Models
Symposium
Teacher Support for Research Moderator Manager

Library 2.0
Flexible Traditional Values Web 2.0 Aware Ubiquitous Competitive Mash Up

Web 2.0
Data Manager Enables Interoperation Enables Participation Builds Community from Edge to Centre Change Agent Invisible Agent Competitive Non-monopolistic Web-based

Library models compared


What would Metasearching look like if we did not concern ourselves with teaching but with enabling? What would it look like if we became invisible agents and enable a centre for creativity where the users make something different from the tools we provide?





Can we trust the user?

User Models: Symposium


Users desire/require  Simplicity  Independence  Results that reflected different intensities of research



Important but less frequently mentioned
  

Lack of database knowledge Learner Time constraints

User Model: Library 2.0


Primary characteristics  Desire for ubiquity  Expectation of collaboration Less frequently mentioned  Disregard for traditional roles



User Model: Web 2.0
Primary Characteristics  Participation  Input to Structure


Important but less frequently mentioned  Non-hierarchical  Open to change  Member of a community  Uses modular software

User Models
Symposium
Desires Simplicity Independent Intensity of Research Database Knowledge Learner Time Constraints Desires Relevancy Navigator Needs Results Wants Novel Information

Library 2.0
Expects Ubiquity Expects Collaboration Disregard for traditional Roles Expects Transparency Expects to Mashup High Skill Level Expects Access to Metadata as well as Content

Web 2.0
User is Participant User has input to Structure Disregard for Hierarchy Open to Change Member of Community Uses Modular Software

User Models compared


What is the difference between the user as participant and as researcher? What would federated searching look like if we let the user learn as s/he goes and creates something different What would the user as a member of the community do vs. the independent solitary user?





MetaSearch :: Vendor Views


Library
  

As manager and researcher (ROI, simple, research intensity, competitive Library as teacher Library as moderator



User

 

As researcher (simple, relevant) As learner Low concern for results, participation, personalization, time, research intensity, web 2.0

Web 2.0 Scenario


Buck R. works as an accountant running a home business as a tax consultant Hobby is collecting toy robots Internet is the first place Buck goes for information, he uses Amazon when looking for books and Google to find information He and some buddies run a blog on toy robots Most of the software he uses in his business is open source, he reads several blogs on tax law Between his hobby and his work Buck spends hours on the internet, he considers it as important a space as his home office

 

 



MetaSearch 2.0 :: Setting the scene


What are the elements of his virtual office?  E.g. Amazon What information could Buck leave behind for others?  E.g. Books he’s looked at, websites he has looked at



Group Work


What are three features of the new FSS 2.0 product that are not found in Google? And how do they relate to the user’s expectations for
  



Ubiquity Participation and collaboration Creativity

At the end: Armageddon or a New World?






Take a look at our assumptions about ourselves and the user Consider the opportunities and energies that can be created Hold on to the valuable parts and leverage into the future

References






Beatty, Susan and Helen Clarke. (2006) Federated Searching Software (FSS): Claims and Features. http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/files/Federated_S earch_Symposium_Notes.pdf Chad, Ken and Paul Miller. (2005). Do libraries matter? The rise of library 2.0, a white paper. http://www.talis.com/downloads/white_papers/DoLib rariesMatter.pdf O’Reilly, Tim. (2005). What is Web 2.0; design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/3 0/what-is-web-20.html

Further readings


Maness, Jack M. Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, v.3, no. 2 June 2006. http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html

Thanks Susan Beatty sdbeatty@ucalgary.ca Helen Clarke hclarke@ucalgary.ca

I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong. Bertrand Russell


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Stats:
views:20
posted:8/19/2008
language:English
pages:35