Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:00:16 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Casual Instructions

2 Messages, 70 Lines
*-----

From:         kendall <KSIMMONS@UKANVM>
Subject:      RE: Casual instructions

In the GENERAL sense, I don't disagree with Stuart Spore at all.  He wrote
approvingly of "training that encourages people to experiment and change their
habits quickly..."  I agree wholeheartedly.  It's a valuable life lesson.
But is that what we're trying to do with an online catalog, for example?
Twenty years ago I took an adult education course in BASIC automobile repair.
I received sufficient training that now I dare try to repair anything in
cars, so when my daughter bought a fuel-injected, electronic ignition
money pit that, when I lifted the hood, looked like nothing I'd ever seen
before, I had my husband pick up a repair manual and now dare to work on that
car...but it is because I had received training (not casual instruction) that I
had the confidence to do so.  Same thing applies to my microcomputer skills.
But I didn't think we were talking about that sort of stuff.  I thought we
were talking about people coming into a library and needing information that
was available on systems ALLEGEDLY designed to get them TO that information.
Maybe KU is unique in that our students can jam a CD-ROM station faster than I
could write that, but "casual instruction" is so often simply not sufficient
for many of them to be able to get what they need (with or without wrecking
the equipment for the next person).  The problem can be as basic as
assuming that people actually READ anything...like signs (don't we all know
about that one) or instructions on the screen or what have you.  Instructions
should instruct.  And they should instruct people so as to enable them to accom
plish the task they wish to accomplish.  So, it depends upon what our goal is
in computer library systems.  I'm not so sure it's to teach our users to
"experiment" with what are fundamentally tools.  I mean, did we expect them to
"experiment" with the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature?

Kendall
*-----

From: (Dirk Herr-Hoyman) <dhoyman@fammed.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Casual Instructions

>Anyone who has used more than one word processor can attest probably still
>has some "translation" difficulties in using their current system, because
>they learned some other logic first.  Moving from ETC (a mainframe system
>called Extended Text Compositor) to Wordstar to Wordperfect, I STILL find
>some of Wordstar's approaches to be screwy -- because they are so
>different from what I learned first (not necessarily because they are
>screwy).
>
>Thinking we can guess where someone else's intuition may lead them is
>the height of arrogance.
>
>        - janet swan hill
>          univ of colo, bldr

Although I agree with the basic premise of Janet's note, that there are
many ways to perform something on the computer, I do not agree that we
cannot understand what these are, at least with regard to OPACs.

Along with looking into post-boolean search methods, I think an active area
for research should be how people do OPAC searches.  If we can identify a
number of methods that account for, say 90-95% of all searches, then
vendors could be asked (required :-) to implement this in the next
generation OPAC.  I have already noted a number of you observing this
behavior casually, I'd like to see this done in a formal study.

Dirk Herr-Hoyman                              |      Are we
University of Wisconsin-Madison               |      kinder and gentler
Dept. of Family Medicine and Practice         |      yet?
dhoyman@fammed.wisc.edu                       |
(608) 262-6368   voice                        |
(608) 263-5813   fax                          |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU