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
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
