The principle goes something like this...
When new users start with the app the interface has lots of helping hands; signposts showing how to do things. For instance, the buttons might have an icon and a label. As people use the app more and more those signposts start to recede out of the design. After you have used a feature a number of times, for example, maybe the label drops out and the button only has an icon. Keep using the app and the icon might subtly change to be less obvious. The idea being that less clutter on the interface allows users to be more productive, but only once you know how the app works.
I started thinking about how this design principle might be implemented in library catalogues.
While I was contemplating how useful such an approach might be it occurred to me that the opposite approach could be be far more useful. Much has been written about the bad user experience on display in most out-of-the-box catalogues supplied by library system vendors, including attempts to propose improvements to simplify the design of our catalogues. And I thought that maybe a progressive enhancement approach might be a good solution.
What if we could provide a simplified interface to new users who are unfamiliar with the catalogue, showing only the most important functionality - the ability to search by keyword, a simple results display with location information and the option to reserve a title for instance.
Then, as you use the catalogue more, new features are introduced over time. It would even be possible to include some game like dynamics with rewards or badges as you achieve usage targets.
 |
| Credit: foursquare core badge list |
There are all sorts of functions in most library catalogues that many people will never use - saved searches, book reviews, saved bibliographies, etc. Even the full bibliographic record can be overwhelming. If they are too prominent in the interface they become confusing for the occasional library user. If they are hidden too deeply in the design our power users can't find them. Perhaps progressive enhancement could be a solution that benefits all library users.
So what do you think? Could this approach work?
I love this concept - please find someone to develop it! (especially love the "achieving the level of bookworm" idea).
ReplyDeleteIn order to do something like this it would be necessary to track individual users as they access the catalogue. It would make sense to me that that should be integrated with the patron record, which means involving the ILS vendors in the development of such a solution. I can't say I've ever seen a modern catalogue interface coming from an ILS vendor so I'm not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteIt has always seemed strange to me that the OPAC interface appears to be such an afterthought, given its role as the primary access point for a library collection? But I place the blame equally on libraries for this. If we prioritised this over feature enhancements to other parts of the ILS maybe we would have better interfaces? I'm sure that the ILS vendors allocate development time based on what their customers are asking for.
I guess the ideas above could be developed outside of the ILS vendor, providing there was access to a patron account API. I could see someone like Biliocommons coming up with some innovative features along these lines.