 |
 |
Jonathan, I, too, like the use of facets. I wish we could do something a bit more "zing" with them, like present them as word clouds or something a bit more appealing than "term (number)" but I think the basic data is there. Facets, as we use them, though, function as set *narrowing* tools. That's very useful when you have a large set, but I'd like to see another function that leads users to nearby areas -- this obviously invokes the idea of topic maps. although I have to admit that topic maps don't always seem very provocative. There's probably some way that we could do them better. I do think that both facets and topic maps may work better using FAST-type headings rather than full LCSH pre-coordinated subject headings. That FAST is derived from LCSH (rather than being developed specifically as a faceted classification) probably makes it something of an under-performer, but the related subjects that appear on the Open Library subject pages give a clue as to how something like this might work. I'd love to see more experimentation in this direction. kc On 9/20/12 12:55 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > On 9/20/2012 1:39 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: >> >> So, given this, and given that in a decent-sized catalog users regularly >> retrieve hundreds or thousands of items, what is the best way to help >> them "grok" that set given that the number of records is too large for >> the user to look at them one-by-one to make a decision? Can the fact >> that the data is in a database help users get a "feel" for what they >> have retrieved without having to look at every record? > > I've often felt that, if it can be properly presented, facets are a > really great way to do this. Facets (with hit counts next to every > value) give you a 'profile' of a result set that is too large for you > to get a sense of otherwise, they give you a sort of descriptive > statistical summary of it. > > When the facets are 'actionable', as they are usually, they also let > you then drill down to particular aspects of the giant result set you > are interested in, and get a _different_ 2.5 screens of results you'll > look at. > > Of course, library studies also often show that our users don't use > the facets, heh. But there are a few conflicting studies that shows > they are used a significant minority of the time. I think it may have > to do with UI issues of how the facets are presented. > > It's also important to remember that it doesn't neccesarily represent > a failure if the user's don't engage with the results beyond the first > 2.5 screens -- it may mean they got what they wanted/needed in those > first 2.5 screens. > > And likewise, that it's okay for us libraries to develop features > which are used only by significant minorities of our users (important > to remember what our logs show is really significant minorities of > _uses_. All users using a feature 1% of the time can show up the same > as 1% of users using a feature 100% of the time). We are not lowest > common denominator, while we need to make our interfaces _usable_ by > everyone (lowest common denominator perhaps), it's part of our mission > to provide functionality in those interfaces for especially > sophisticated uses that won't be used by everyone all the time. -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet