1 / 35

So Why Do You Want Federated Searching?

So Why Do You Want Federated Searching? . Presented by Susan Beatty Helen Clarke University of Calgary Netspeed 2006, October 18 th. In the beginning: Why are we here today?. To take a look at our mental models of the user and ourselves

kiaria
Download Presentation

So Why Do You Want Federated Searching?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. So Why Do You Want Federated Searching? Presented by Susan Beatty Helen Clarke University of Calgary Netspeed 2006, October 18th

  2. In the beginning: Why are we here today? • To take a look at our mental models of the user and ourselves • To challenge our thinking on the needs of the user and of ourselves • To consider how we might achieve better Federated Searching product design

  3. We can’t know why we want it unless we know who will use it • How do we describe our users and our roles? • How is this reflected in software design? • If we look to the future who will our users be and how will our roles change? • What could Metasearching 2.0 look like?

  4. Our agenda today • What was our investigation ? • What were our results? • Is there a better way? • Group work • Feedback • Conclusions

  5. Where it all Started :: Federated Searching Symposium Feb 2006 10 groups discussed the positive and negative aspects of the features as they related to the claims statements and how to mitigate the negative impacts http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/files/Federated_Search_Symposium_Notes.pdf

  6. What Happened at the Symposium ? • Vendors and Librarians • discussed the relative merits of the features without defensive language • came to a better mutual understanding of the capacities and outcomes of Federated Searching • Conclusions • There are no perfect tools • There are many variations on “user” and “library”

  7. We simply assume that the way we see things is the way they really are or the way they should be. And our attitudes and behaviors grow out of these assumptions.Stephen R. Covey

  8. After all, when you come right down to it, how many people speak the same language even when they speak the same language?Russell Hoban

  9. Why should we care? • Librarians serve as intermediaries between designers and users. • Explicit, non-judgemental and accurate user models improve products.

  10. Task Product Cycle • People discover new uses that designers never anticipated • Designers then need to re-create products to meet these new uses • People take the new products and discover new uses

  11. How does the user envisioned in the Symposium compare with the user assumptions implicit in Library 2.0 and Web 2.0?Are current vendor models of the user reflected in the language of metasearching vendors?What would metasearching look like if it were designed for the Web 2.0 user? Changing the Bathwater

  12. New Bathwater :: Web 2.0 Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004, refers to a supposed second-generation of Internet-based services — such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies — that let people collaborate and share information online in previously unavailable ways. - Web 2.0, Wikipedia

  13. More new bathwater Library 2.0 Llibrary services are constantly updated and revaluated to best serve library users. Library 2.0 also attempts to harness the library user in the design and implementation of library services by encouraging feedback and participation. Proponents of this concept expect that ultimately the Library 2.0 model for service will replace traditional, one-directional service offerings that have characterized libraries for centuries. - Library 2.0, Wikipedia

  14. Unpacking the Texts • Federated Searching Software Claims and Features Report from the TAL Symposium • What is web 2.0? Tim O’Reilly • Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0 Ken Chad and Paul Miller • Serials review v. 32, no. 3 2006 Series of articles on Metasearch products

  15. Methodology :: WEFT QDA • An open source tool for content analysis http://www.pressure.to/qda/ “Weft QDA is an easy-to-use tool to assist in the analysis of textual data such as interview transcripts, written texts and fieldnotes. “

  16. Methodology • Chose from the texts words/phrases that reflected / described the user or the librarian • Sorted phrases into two sections – User Actions / Librarian Actions • Sorted recurring concepts/phrases into categories • Sorted categories by frequency of concepts/phrases

  17. Library Model: Symposium • Librarian as teacher • Librarian as support to research • Depth of information is important • Librarian as moderator and manager • Needs return on investment • Values simplicity and ranking • Librarian knows best

  18. Library model: Library 2.0 • Library is flexible • Library has traditional values • enabler, library collaboration, standards • Library as web 2.0 • Centralized and open, seeks participation • Theatre of creativity (previously fed creativity) • Library is ubiquitous • Library is competitive • Library is a mash-up, non-geographic

  19. Library model: Web 2.0 • Library has data • Library enables interoperability • Library enables participation • Community works from edge to centre • Library operations are as change agent • Library is middle man- invisible agent • Library is competitive, non-monopolistic and web-based

  20. Library Models

  21. Library models compared • What would Metasearching look like if we did not concern ourselves with teaching but with enabling? • What would it look like if we became invisible agents and enable a centre for creativity where the users make something different from the tools we provide? • Can we trust the user?

  22. User Models: Symposium • Users desire/require • Simplicity • Independence • Results that reflected different intensities of research • Important but less frequently mentioned • Lack of database knowledge • Learner • Time constraints

  23. User Model: Library 2.0 • Primary characteristics • Desire for ubiquity • Expectation of collaboration • Less frequently mentioned • Disregard for traditional roles

  24. User Model: Web 2.0 Primary Characteristics • Participation • Input to Structure • Important but less frequently mentioned • Non-hierarchical • Open to change • Member of a community • Uses modular software

  25. User Models

  26. User Models compared • What is the difference between the user as participant and as researcher? • What would federated searching look like if we let the user learn as s/he goes and creates something different • What would the user as a member of the community do vs. the independent solitary user?

  27. MetaSearch :: Vendor Views • Library • As manager and researcher (ROI, simple, research intensity, competitive • Library as teacher • Library as moderator • User • As researcher (simple, relevant) • As learner • Low concern for results, participation, personalization, time, research intensity, web 2.0

  28. Web 2.0 Scenario • Buck R. works as an accountant running a home business as a tax consultant • Hobby is collecting toy robots • Internet is the first place Buck goes for information, he uses Amazon when looking for books and Google to find information • He and some buddies run a blog on toy robots • Most of the software he uses in his business is open source, he reads several blogs on tax law • Between his hobby and his work Buck spends hours on the internet, he considers it as important a space as his home office

  29. MetaSearch 2.0 :: Setting the scene • What are the elements of his virtual office? • E.g. Amazon • What information could Buck leave behind for others? • E.g. Books he’s looked at, websites he has looked at

  30. Group Work • What are three features of the new FSS 2.0 product that are not found in Google? • And how do they relate to the user’s expectations for • Ubiquity • Participation and collaboration • Creativity

  31. At the end: Armageddon or a New World? • Take a look at our assumptions about ourselves and the user • Consider the opportunities and energies that can be created • Hold on to the valuable parts and leverage into the future

  32. References • Beatty, Susan and Helen Clarke. (2006) Federated Searching Software (FSS): Claims and Features. http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/files/Federated_Search_Symposium_Notes.pdf • Chad, Ken and Paul Miller. (2005). Do libraries matter? The rise of library 2.0, a white paper. http://www.talis.com/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf • O’Reilly, Tim. (2005). What is Web 2.0; design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

  33. Further readings • Maness, Jack M. Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, v.3, no. 2 June 2006. http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html

  34. ThanksSusan Beatty sdbeatty@ucalgary.caHelen Clarkehclarke@ucalgary.ca

  35. I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong.Bertrand Russell

More Related