 |
 |
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:39:46 -0500, "Nate Vack" <[log in to unmask]> said: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Naomi Dushay <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > 1. The user is not broken. Our faculty are very vocal in desiring a > > "virtual shelf list" that will allow them to, given a specific item, look > > for "closely located" items. Call numbers have facilitated co-location of > > (some) related physical materials, which facilitates a browsing experience > > that users enjoy. Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's something else ... but > > they enjoy it and find it useful. They are used to call numbers, and by god, > > they want call numbers. Who are we to naysay? > > I don't mean to naysay -- I just suspect that what what people think > of when shelf browsing -- namely, the big set of books arranged in LC > order -- may not be the part of the experience that makes shelf > browsing so special. One of the more interesting anecdotes from the Evergreen front lines I heard of late has to do with shelf browsing. A librarian remarked that though she personally never used it, she observed a patron enthusiastically show another patron how to shelf-browse in the PINES catalog. I don't use Evergreen's shelf-browse much myself, because I typically hit a catalog with a list of known items and stick with that. But I do have a weakness for craft and project books, with their colorful jackets and tempting titles (not that I ever *do* any of these crafts or projects), and I like to shelf-browse in the PINES catalog for these. I definitely see how patrons would like this. So I'm with Genny. For a number of reasons, including analyses done in previous jobs, I agree that people want browse. But of course, they want GOOD browse -- easy, functional, attractive, and available. -- -- | Karen G. Schneider | Community Librarian | Equinox Software Inc. "The Evergreen Experts" | Toll-free: 1.877.Open.ILS (1.877.673.6457) x712 | E-Mail/AIM: [log in to unmask] | Web: http://www.esilibrary.com