<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: They only suck &#8217;cause we let &#8216;em</title>
	<atom:link href="http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120</link>
	<description>Why stop dreaming when you wake up?</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Remaining Relevant &#187; Blog Archive &#187; You can&#8217;t trip over what&#8217;s not there&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120#comment-441</link>
		<dc:creator>Remaining Relevant &#187; Blog Archive &#187; You can&#8217;t trip over what&#8217;s not there&#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/remainingrelevant/?p=120#comment-441</guid>
		<description>[...] I feel some particular kinship with WPOPAC having participated in many boisterous conversations about online library resource provision and the ins-and-outs of interface design, I feel like a very stakeholder in the project. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I feel some particular kinship with WPOPAC having participated in many boisterous conversations about online library resource provision and the ins-and-outs of interface design, I feel like a very stakeholder in the project. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Smit Jr.</title>
		<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120#comment-440</link>
		<dc:creator>John Smit Jr.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/remainingrelevant/?p=120#comment-440</guid>
		<description>I like you site. Visit &lt;a href='http://www.google.com' rel="nofollow"&gt;Test&lt;/a&gt; 0cbc6611f5540bd</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like you site. Visit <a href='http://www.google.com' rel="nofollow">Test</a> 0cbc6611f5540bd</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lichen</title>
		<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120#comment-439</link>
		<dc:creator>Lichen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 12:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/remainingrelevant/?p=120#comment-439</guid>
		<description>Brian #1 - I think you, and &lt;a href="http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/11298/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Casey&lt;/a&gt; are absolutely correct.  It's not enough if one or two of us are raising our expectations and attitudes about library software - we all need to.  What if you printed out the pledge and sent it to the consortium?  Or pointed to Casey's blog?  Reconnaisance?  Slipped papers under doorways?

Brian #2 - This is the best reason for focused usability testing.  I've found that even as a qualified web developer it's too easy to get into a 'because I said so and I'm the [blank] arguments' with librarians.  Both of us have expertise and so it's a draw.  SO you need to point to good evidence of what USERS want gathered from them - bonus points if you can get the naysayers to participate in the testing process.  If anyone in a library STILL insists on a public interface their way instead of the way the users would like - well - then - I'd call them names and push them down.  'Cause they've got no business in libraries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian #1 - I think you, and <a href="http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/11298/" rel="nofollow">Casey</a> are absolutely correct.  It&#8217;s not enough if one or two of us are raising our expectations and attitudes about library software - we all need to.  What if you printed out the pledge and sent it to the consortium?  Or pointed to Casey&#8217;s blog?  Reconnaisance?  Slipped papers under doorways?</p>
<p>Brian #2 - This is the best reason for focused usability testing.  I&#8217;ve found that even as a qualified web developer it&#8217;s too easy to get into a &#8216;because I said so and I&#8217;m the [blank] arguments&#8217; with librarians.  Both of us have expertise and so it&#8217;s a draw.  SO you need to point to good evidence of what USERS want gathered from them - bonus points if you can get the naysayers to participate in the testing process.  If anyone in a library STILL insists on a public interface their way instead of the way the users would like - well - then - I&#8217;d call them names and push them down.  &#8216;Cause they&#8217;ve got no business in libraries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Who Makes These Decisions Anyway? &#171; MaisonBisson.com</title>
		<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120#comment-438</link>
		<dc:creator>Who Makes These Decisions Anyway? &#171; MaisonBisson.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 May 2006 16:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/remainingrelevant/?p=120#comment-438</guid>
		<description>[...] Brian&#8217;s comment at RemainingRelevant should resonate with many of us: Something to consider about why libraries end up with bad interfaces (at least as far as catalogs go) is that it might be that the people who use the interface (and help the public use it) are not the people who decide which interface to use. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Brian&#8217;s comment at RemainingRelevant should resonate with many of us: Something to consider about why libraries end up with bad interfaces (at least as far as catalogs go) is that it might be that the people who use the interface (and help the public use it) are not the people who decide which interface to use. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: herzogbr</title>
		<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120#comment-437</link>
		<dc:creator>herzogbr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 May 2006 02:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/remainingrelevant/?p=120#comment-437</guid>
		<description>Another rant I've been on at my library lately is about how we organize information on our website.  I</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another rant I&#8217;ve been on at my library lately is about how we organize information on our website.  I</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: herzogbr</title>
		<link>http://remainingrelevant.net/remaining/120#comment-436</link>
		<dc:creator>herzogbr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 May 2006 02:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/remainingrelevant/?p=120#comment-436</guid>
		<description>Something to consider about why libraries end up with bad interfaces (at least as far as catalogs go) is that it might be that the people who use the interface (and help the public use it) are not the people who decide which interface to use.  In my case, I work in a library that's part of a 36-member consortium, and our catalog software (Dynix's Horizon v7.3) was chosen by a committee at the consortium level (it was in place before I got there, so I don't know what kind of input from libraries they asked for).

The problem here is that they had to pick an interface that worked for the lowest common denominator library, and not the interface most purely user-friendly.  And, probably more so than usual, the budget was a factor.  Plus, now that it in place, it is maintained by people who are not librarians, and that don</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something to consider about why libraries end up with bad interfaces (at least as far as catalogs go) is that it might be that the people who use the interface (and help the public use it) are not the people who decide which interface to use.  In my case, I work in a library that&#8217;s part of a 36-member consortium, and our catalog software (Dynix&#8217;s Horizon v7.3) was chosen by a committee at the consortium level (it was in place before I got there, so I don&#8217;t know what kind of input from libraries they asked for).</p>
<p>The problem here is that they had to pick an interface that worked for the lowest common denominator library, and not the interface most purely user-friendly.  And, probably more so than usual, the budget was a factor.  Plus, now that it in place, it is maintained by people who are not librarians, and that don</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
