When we did some user interviews lately, we found that not all young users act like the stereotype "young users" act, and some older users, even faculty researchers, DO act like the stereotype of "young users".
I think the goals people are claiming under the mantle of "young users" really are appropriate and needed. Many of our users, young and old, sophisticated and naive (in terms of research and in terms of technology), really DO need things to be different than what we are providing them, and a lot (but not neccesarily all) of this change really is because of what they (young and old, sophisticated and naive) have come to expect from other web services. The problem is the assumption that this is "young users". It's all kind of users. Are there still other kinds of users (that cross age boundaries too, probably) that need other things too? Should public libraries make sure the illiterate are served too? Sure. An academic library's patrons probably are mostly literate, but do we need to continue to serve people who are unfamiliar with and uncomfortable with technology too? Certainly. And those people also come both young and old, both sophisticated and naive. And I doubt we're serving them very well either. But anyway, the assumption that _all_ "young users" want a certain thing is no more or less flawed, at least in our library, as the assumption that _all_ sophisticated older faculty researchers want pretty much exactly what we're giving them, and none want simpler or less confusing interfaces. Jonathan Miksa, Shawne wrote:
That everyone talks as if the only group of users are young people or young students really angers me. I would agree they are the most predominant, evaluated group of users, but why do we constantly talk as if they are the only group? Last year I attended a two-day visioning task force concerning libraries in Texas and everyone was obsessed with re-imagining libraries to cater to the needs/whims of this one group--the Google generation, the digital natives. In our closing session one gentlemen stood up, and I apologize but I can't remember his name, and stated quite bluntly that Texas has something like a 40% illiteracy rate. (And, I have to add that over the years I graded paper after paper from both Undergraduate and MASTERS students some of whom display an incredible lack of writing skills--unable to write even the most basic sentence, unable to synthesize the most fundamental concepts of information organization.) What happened to our responsibility to reach ALL the users of our information systems and thus our collections of resources both physical and virtual? What happened to our responsibility to help them connect to information and to learn? I understand the need to create a good information system, but are we basing this on the needs of one group of users out of many? The organization of information is much much deeper and more profound than that. That is what I see RDA potentially helping us to do. How it does it still needs research and evaluation. Lastly, when did the situation become stating "why library catalogs are still a better solution to many problems of searching"? Is this an "either/or" decision or "this system is better than that system, therefore don't use that system at all, ever" situation? Library catalogs are one among many searching solutions and, yes, they do deserve to be improved. Perhaps I misunderstand what Bernard is saying. ************************************************************** Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Library and Information Sciences College of Information, Library Science, and Technology University of North Texas email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101 **************************************************************
-- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu
