I have no intention of turning myÂ DBLÂ posts intoÂ some version ofÂ the user experienceÂ police, but I might on occasion point to what could be a bogus use of the UX concept. Whether it might beÂ because the use in case is an example of pointless bandwagon jumping, total misuse of the concept or just some shameless effort to get attentionÂ with the concept, you could be reading about it here. But since I’m not always entirely certain myself as to what great library user experiences might be – that’s a practice still in evolution – perhaps critically analyzing some different ways in which UX is being applied in library settings can help to further define just what is a great library user experience – be it using the library facility, a library instructional product or some other library-related resource.
Seeing the spread of ideas about design thinking and user experience in the library profession is something I generally look forward to as a positive development. But I just had my first encounter with a library product vendor (in the role of an article author) applying the term “user experience” as a way to describe what the product delivers. I’m not so sure I’m feeling positive about this use of UX. It reminds me of the Ziggy cartoon where the diner menu says “chili – $2.50…”the chili experience – $4.00”.
Â I would first questionÂ the title “User Experience in the Library: A Case Study” as potentially misleading. The discussionÂ hardly deals with a library user experience at all, butÂ instead focuses rather narrowly on OPAC overlay products, in particular the one produced by the author’s firm. The author, Tamar Sedeh works for Ex Libris, and the article is largely about Primo, Ex Libris’ OPAC overlay. For example, Sedeh writes: “The Primo system includes metasearching as an integral part of the user experience.” I haven’t asked them, but I wonder if most end-users’ idea of a user experience would match the author’s.
What concerns me about an article like this, though I suspect it won’t reach a large audience, is its potential to mislead library professionals about user experience and what it is.Â Again, I’m just learning about this myself, but I don’t think UX is what happensÂ when library users search OPACs, evenÂ those with more user friendly designed overlays. However, searching library systems, if they are simple and give good results consistently, could be one part of the totality of a great library user experience. After all, what if the library OPAC does provide a great experience, and then the user goes to the stacks and can’t understand how to find the book by its call number, or the stacks are in terrible conditionÂ – and there’s no way to get on-the-spot help. At that point the user probably won’t be having such a great experience at the library.
Â ButÂ I believe this author makes theÂ error of confusing usability – which is largely discussed in this article -Â and user experience. They are not the same. Think of it like this. The iPod, most of us would agree, is a highly usable electronic device – intuitive, simple, reliable – and I don’t think most of us would confuse an iPod with a library OPAC. Â The iPod is a good example of a device for the age of the user experience. But the iPod, by itself, is only a part of the overall user experience. The experience is all that Apple offers as part of being an iPod owner – iTunes, shopping at the iTunes store, the coolness of showing off your iPod, or more recently your iTouch. It is, in some ways, about the totality of the experience. Think back to what Dr. Gribbons had to say about this:
Usability is often isolated in development units, whereas companies who are getting UX right these days are talking about the user experience at the very top levels within the organization – not just in the tech and development shops. This leads to a more complete integration of the user experience with UX as a foundation as opposed to an afterthought.Â
While the DBL blog team certainly is doing what it can to expand the library community’s knowledge about design thinking and great library user experiences,Â I haveÂ my apprehensions about those who will simply slap the phrase “user experience” on library-related job descriptions, servicesÂ or products the same way that corporations will slap the word “organic” or “homemade” on products that are manufactured by mahinesÂ in assembly lines. Just putting the label onÂ something doesn’t make it the real thing.
We certainly can’t eliminate innappropriate or misleading applications of user experience in librarianship, but we can continue to point them out as potentiallyÂ bad examples that are worthy of our analysis. We might evenÂ use them to further our own understanding and appreciation ofÂ the meaning of aÂ great library user experience. If you think I’m displaying some arrogance here, let me know. I may not know as much as I think about user experience, and perhaps I’m not qualified to be critical of other librarians or product vendors who co-opt the phrase for their own purposes. Read the article and see what you think – and then share your thoughts.