 |
 |
-----Original Message----- From: Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:44:14 To: <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] CODE4LIB Digest - 12 Feb 2012 to 13 Feb 2012 (#2012-42) Hi David, It's interesting that you bring this up. When we designed the touchscreen it was more or less as a one-off prototype, just to see what we could do with what we had. We wanted an aesthetically and functionally pleasing experience, but other than including some familiar content areas and layout within those areas, we didn't strive for consistency with other interaction experiences we offer in any meaningful way -- though nor did we deliberately set out to make things outrageously different. I think a lot of the distinctiveness of the interface arose organically in an effort to develop an interaction model that would be very clear in the "public touchscreen kiosk" context. However, a redesign of the touchscreen is in the pipeline, and one of our primary goals is to make it more consistent with other experiences that we offer (especially the mobile website), in terms of aesthetics, iconography, vocabulary, and functionality; at least to the extent that's practical in context. Of course there'll be some specialty stuff that's unique to the touchscreen context, but the end result should be familiar enough to users of the mobile website that the learning curve should be significantly reduced. Whether this functional aesthetic gets extended to the website and to physical library spaces remains to be seen; traditionally we haven't coordinated these things too strongly, especially with respect to user experience, but some strategic initiatives that are now underway will probably result in stronger and more uniform guidelines across our user experience space. It's definitely something that's on our mind. (To be clear, in the portion of the article you quote, I was really trying to say that the interface for the touchscreen was intended not to betray the fact that it was really just a web browser running on an off-the-shelf computer. By "dedicated" I meant to indicate that the feel we were going for was that of a kind of magic box, one whose only purpose in life was to serve as a touchscreen informational interface -- totally disguising the dirty details of web browser, HTML content, and mac mini that were making it go.) -Dre On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM, David Talley <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > From the article Tod helpfully links: "One of our implementation goals was > to build a touch interface that > appeared to be completely dedicated and self-contained: we did not want > it to be apparent to the user that the interface had been created with > and was being driven by commodity components. " > > I'm stuck by the self-contained nature of this project design, and > similarly with the iPad catalog look-up tools. Are such implementations > most successful with separate, narrowly defined goals? Or would a library > want to keep a consistent interaction experience across the website, > kiosks, and even physical space (signage, displays, functional process > terminology, etc.)? I tend to think that even if specific interaction > methods are tailored to provide particular information in specific > contexts, they all need to be designed as components of the user's overall > interaction experience. > > David > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:55:09 -0600 > From: Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Touch Screens in the Library > > NCSU has done some work you might be interested in. See this article: > > Lessons in Public Touchscreen Development > by Andreas K. Orphanides > > http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5832 > > -Tod > > Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]> > Systems Librarian > University of Chicago Library >