ABSTRACT
The user-oriented holistic approach to the development of information systems and services has been strongly advocated by the vast majority of information studies researchers for quite some time now (for extensive reviews of the literature on the subject see Dervin and Nilan, 1986; Hewins, 1990; Pettigrew et al., 2001). Indeed, according to Stefl-Mabry et al. (2003, 441) ‘user-centred design has become an established goal of much of the work in information science’. Practice, however, seems to lag (far) behind theory where the actual set up, evaluation and auditing of information provision systems are concerned. As Pettigrew et al. (2001) point out, the realisation that information systems and services should be designed to support information behaviour and that the design of such systems should be based on our understanding of this behaviour, has not often led to the forging of a direct link from the study of information needs and behaviour to information provision specifications or practice. Thus, information professionals may be forever paying what is really not much more than lip service to the ‘user’, but while space-age information systems grace our desk tops, information centres and libraries, we still do not use suitably modern and effective management methods to ensure that these systems are providing their customers with what they need and want. To say that information systems are largely free from consumer evaluation and are seldom challenged with user needs or usage data, would be to exaggerate, but not by very much. Rarely are high-quality data fed into the design, evaluation and running of information systems, like intranets, libraries and websites. It is hardly surprising, then, to find that people in the information profes-
sions, alert as they are to the technical changes that have taken place in the virtual information space, are nevertheless going about their business as if nothing really fundamental has happened to their clients, the users-cumconsumers. Indeed, contrary to what is plainly there for all to see, they seem to believe that the digital information consumers of today are no different from the ‘library patrons’ or ‘readers’ of yore. However, as we have noted elsewhere (Nicholas et al., 2008b), these days information professionals are confronted with an entirely different breed of information seekers, looking for information, yes, but also for goods, services, new experiences, titillation,
excitement and entertainment. Moreover, they can do their information seeking unbelievably easily and expediently through a plethora of devices and platforms at their disposal 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Indeed, as our whole experience of the virtual scholar clearly indicates, for today’s information consumer convenience and user satisfaction will triumph, even over content, any day of the week (Nicholas et al., 2008b). What is more, as CIBER’s ‘Google Generation’ project amply proves, today’s digital consumers benchmark their online experiences against more immersive environments like Amazon or Facebook (Williams et al., 2008). It is a foregone conclusion, then, that virtual library spaces need to be involving, easy to use and simple. Why, then, are so many of the sites produced by information professionals and publishers as complex and austere as they are? Why can’t library catalogues be like Amazon, with sample pages, trust metrics, referral metrics, user feedback and colour? Why do they not speak to the user? We need to remember: if the traditional purveyor of information is not there (at best) or gets in the way of communication (at worst), consumers will simply abandon what to them is a sinking ship – after all, they can go their own way! This key aspect of the digital revolution applies to all members of the communication and information food chain, and ignoring it brings about a real risk of libraries becoming decoupled from the user. We will take up this point again further on, but first, why this patent disregard of the user?
