I found the readings this week very interesting and telling. On the surface it seems like the complexity and variability of DLs would create a very difficult platform on which to develop standards of usability, and this peripheral observation is supported in the readings: Designing User Interfaces, Evaluation of Digital Libraries, and Digital Library Design for Usability.
In Designing User Interfaces, Sheiderman and Plaisant introduce us to the nuances and challenges of designing effective user interfaces but they also expound on the importance of good user interfaces that are adaptable to the most challenging situations ("small to mall sized displays") and user needs (large print, brightness control, audio...) and how these interfaces, when designed effectively, can have profound effects on how an entire community engages with information. This reading reminded me how vast the world of user interfaces is from life-and-death functions (air-traffic control) to basic home usages. This concept provides some foreshadowing to concerning challenges in evaluating and standardizing DL usability.
Sheiderman and Plaisant presented three goals for designers of good interfaces: "1) Influencing academic and industrial researchers; 2) providing tools, techniques , and knowledge for commercial developers; 3) raising the computer consciousness for the general public" (37). Though logical, the next two readings explain why focus and standardization of DL usability is so difficult. Saracevic's Evaluation of Digital Libraries is a summation of the reasons behind the dearth of DL evaluation. Saracevic explains that "DLs are complex social, institution, and technical systems. no evaluation can possibly address all of these aspects together" (4), and [...evaluators have chosen their own evaluation criteria as they went along... and results are not consistent] (5). This is disconcerting but understandable. Without uniform criteria, usability standards would be difficult to establish. It sounds like the take-off of DLs in so many different directions has created a situation that is actually getting further out of reach as Saracevic concludes that neither DL evaluations nor importance placed on them are increasing (9).
In Digital Library Design for Usability, Kling and Elliot, by way of examining user needs with regard to specific DL uses, give some prime examples of why establishing usability standards is so difficult. Although "the time is ripe for DL designers to appreciate the importance of 'design for organizational usablity'", the myriad cultures and user types described in this reading make it apparent that usability standardization of DLs faces formidable obstacles in the evaluative and standardization process. Not only do the wide array of user objectives, user types, and levels of seriousness (research vs. other usages) come into play, but funding, awareness, political factors are also issues that surround the topic of DL usability and standardizatin.
Will a central DL theme every be realized? I was somewhat comforted by readings in the past that expounded upon standardization committees for OA-PMI, however, when it comes to DL usability it seems like DLs are running away from us, each in their own direction. My concern is that if usability is not standardized, will individual DLs be able to survive. If evaluation is not increasing, and in fact stagnating, is this a symptom of lack of interest?
No comments:
Post a Comment