As a part of ASIS&T’s increased efforts to reach and provide services to the membership through social media, we are proud to introduce a new service for doctoral student members that compliments the doctoral seminar and doctoral student-focused panels at the Annual Meeting. This new service—Ask Dr. Laura—is a place where doctoral students can go to get answers to questions about a variety of issues related to surviving the doctoral program and preparing for a faculty or research position after graduation. We encourage doctoral students to send in your questions! The website is located at: http://www.asis.org/askdrlaura. Enjoy!
Posted on behalf of Sandy Hirsh. –Diane Rasmussen Pennington, Social Media Manager
As incoming ASIS&T President, one of my major initiatives this year is strategic planning for the association. With the ongoing changes to our field, the range of choices that people have to engage professionally, and the importance of charting a clear future for the association, it is critical that ASIS&T develop an actionable strategic plan that is in strong alignment with member interests and needs.
To build this shared future vision for ASIS&T and to ensure that ASIS&T is meeting your needs, we need your ideas and participation in the strategic planning process. This is your opportunity to help shape the future of the association – and I hope you will make your voice heard. We are kicking off the strategic planning process in a couple of weeks at the 2014 ASIS&T Annual Meeting in Seattle, and there will be opportunities to participate virtually in the process after the meeting as well.
Strategic Planning Activities at the 2014 Annual Meeting
There are two ways you can participate in the strategic planning process at the ASIS&T Annual Meeting. We hope you will engage in at least one of these – if not both!
1) Participate in a focus group interview session – Thank you to those of you who have already signed up to participate in one of the focus group interview sessions! We are holding six focus group interview sessions at the Annual Meeting – each one focused on a particular type of member (see below).
We are still hoping to find some additional participants for the focus group interview sessions. We have a few spaces available in each session. Please check your schedules and let us know as soon as possible if you match the criteria and can fit one of these sessions into your schedule. All sessions will be 90 minutes. And, food will be provided!
Here is the schedule of focus group interview sessions at the Annual Meeting:
- Sunday 9:30am Practitioners (Member 0-5 years)
- Sunday 11:30am Practitioners (Member 6+ years)
- Sunday 5:00pm Academics/Faculty (Member 0-5 years)
- Monday 9:00am Leaders (Current/former board, SIG and Chapter Reps)
- Monday 12:00pm Students (Masters and Doctoral)
- Tuesday 9:00am Academics/Faculty (Member 6+ years)
Please contact Maric Kramer to let her know if you can participate! Her email is: MKramer@wheelock.edu
2) Share your ideas on a poster board – When you are attending the annual meeting, you will see a few poster boards located around the main conference areas that have questions printed on them. We want to collect your responses to these questions as inputs to the strategic planning process. There will be post-it notes and pens provided at each poster board so you can record your responses. We hope you will take a few minutes to share your ideas, thoughts, and suggestions!
Participation Opportunities After the 2014 Annual Meeting
If you are attending the Annual Meeting in Seattle, we hope that you will participate in one or both of the activities above. But we know that people’s schedules are busy during the conference, and the timing might not work out to participate when you are there. We also know that not all ASIS&T members are able to attend the annual meeting. We want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate in the strategic planning process if they want to. We hope to engage the full spectrum of ASIS&T members, including our student, international, and practitioner members, in the strategic planning process.
So, after the Annual Meeting, we will be sending more information about virtual opportunities for participating in the strategic planning process. Specifically, there will be virtual focus group interview sessions (similar to the sessions we are holding at the Annual Meeting but these will be held online), as well as virtual town hall meetings where we will review and discuss draft versions of the strategic plan.
What Strategic Planning Means for ASIS&T
ASIS&T currently does not have a strategic plan. Our goal is to complete the strategic plan by the 2015 Annual Meeting. Of course, strategic planning doesn’t end with the creation of the plan. The strategic plan will be a living document and will be regularly reviewed, revised, and reported on after it is created. Strategic planning will:
- provide strategic direction for the association, thus setting the association up for long-term success;
- review ASIS&T’s mission, vision, and goals and translate these into clear actions that can be reported on;
- allow the association to better align resources with strategic goals; and
- ensure the association is meeting membership needs and being more transparent.
I look forward to seeing many of you very soon in Seattle!
Sandy Hirsh, ASIS&T President-Elect
We’re starting a new monthly series on the ASIS&T Blog this week: “Get to Know a SIG / Get to Know a Chapter.” This new series will help existing and prospective ASIS&T members learn more about the groups that are an integral and essential part of the broader association. These include Special Interest Groups (or SIGs), which cover particular topics and specialties of interest to researchers and practitioners; Student Chapters, which provide student members of ASIS&T at universities across the world a local organization and special activities and programs; and Regional Chapters, which foster communication, interaction, and events among ASIS&T members in geographically-defined areas. All three group types will be covered by this “Get to Know” series.
Our first featured SIG is SIG HFIS, History and Foundations of Information Science. I interviewed Lai Ma, the current chair of SIG HFIS and a Lecturer at the University College Dublin School of Information and Library Studies, and Sarah A. Buchanan, immediate past chair and current webmaster for the SIG and a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin School of Information. We discussed the areas SIG HFIS covers, the activities they engage in, the benefits of becoming a member and volunteering as an officer of the SIG, and how they engage with their members online, among other questions. We hope that this interview helps you get to know SIG HFIS better, and perhaps become interested in joining and contributing to their activities and efforts! (The interview has been slightly edited for length and clarity.)
About SIG HFIS
Adam: How long have each of you been a member of ASIS&T, and how long have you been a member of SIG HFIS?
Lai: I have to count, wait! [laughs] I think I have been a member since 2008, so six years. I think since then I have been a member of SIG HFIS.
Sarah: I joined in early 2008, in my first year of my master’s program at UCLA. I joined SIG HFIS shortly after. I think my ASIS&T story would probably start with the UCLA Student Chapter, and I was a member of that for two years in my master’s program. And immediately after that I joined the local Los Angeles chapter, LACASIST. I was the secretary of the chapter, and when we were aware that our 50th anniversary was approaching, I volunteered to take the lead in planning a program to celebrate that. And so that program was held in June 2011, and I also served as the chair of the Los Angeles chapter in 2011-2012.
Adam: And that sort of historical involvement led you to join SIG HFIS?
Sarah: Yes, as part of our celebratory year, I was interested in our history as a chapter. And, I was hoping to visit the archive—I knew we had an archive of historical documents—mainly in terms of putting together a nice event and possibly showing off some of our history, as a chapter. It grew into a full-fledged research project, where I actually wrote a paper on the history of the chapter. I submitted it to the ASIS&T History Fund, and through that I got involved in SIG HFIS.
Adam: What topics does the SIG focus on?
Lai: HFIS is concerned with the history of information science; I think that’s pretty straightforward. And then also we’re interested in the theoretical development of the field. So it involves and we are particularly interested in historical work, including oral histories, to document what happens in the field. And that’s actually pretty broad, and that will include stories of chapters—like what Sarah has talked about—the history of particular chapters, the history of a particular SIG, and any history of a broader topic in information science. And in terms of theoretical development, I think that anything that deals with concepts or theories in any area of information science, we will be interested in.
Adam: Would you say it’s mostly a focus on research, on practice, a combination, on theory? Where would you say the primary focus ends up sitting?
Lai: I think some of the things will be interrelated. So in the upcoming Annual Meeting we have a panel on the “Pluri-, Multi- Trans- Meta- and Interdisciplinary Nature of LIS,” Tuesday at 8:30. And that type of topic is both theoretical and historical, so I think it’s not like one or another, but—sometimes it will be more historical and sometimes it will be more theoretical, but there are also topics where the two things will be very much interrelated.
Adam: And some topics are focused on research, and sometimes it’s more focused in the practice of the field, is the impression I get?
Sarah: Yes. Continue reading
Hello ASIS&T! Once again, the Web Redesign Task Force needs your input.
Those of us who have been involved with ASIS&T for a while might recognize that we have a bit of an “alphabet soup” when it comes to our individual groups within the association. Arguably, our biggest groups are:
- Regional Chapters, which are defined by geographic locale, such as the Taipei Chapter and the New England Chapter
- Student Chapters, which serve student members, such as the Simmons College Student Chapter and the University of Denver Student Chapter
- Special Interest Groups, or SIGs, which address specific ares of information such as Digital Libraries (SIG DL) and Visualization, Images, and Sound (SIG VIS)
These structures can be confusing to prospective and new members, and may even be confusing to longtime members as well!
With the redesign, we’re trying to address ways to make these groups more accessible so that all members can find their chapters and SIGs more easily without having to worry too much about all the alphabet soup stuff. To that end, we’re looking at a few different options for organizing the structure of these categories so that it’s easier to understand for everyone.
Below you’ll see three different options for organizing this section of the new website. Which structure makes the most sense to you, and why? Or do you have a different structure to suggest? Please let us know in the comments. In addition to your own perception, try to “think like a new member” as well, because we’re really interested in not confusing new people.
Your ongoing input is very much appreciated. Have a great one!
The Web Presence Task Force is really excited about the work that @SevenHeadsDesign continues to do for our website redesign! We’re still on track to launch the new site design at the Annual Meeting in November, but we’ll post some bits and pieces here on the blog before then. You could say we’re trying to get some buzz going.
One topic of intense debate in the Task Force’s discussions has been the favicon, also known as the tiny image that you see in the browser tabs. You can see several recognizable favicons in the following screenshot from my Firefox tabs:
So, from left to right, I have Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, The ASIS&T Blog, and YouTube pinned. The Weather Channel and CNN are not pinned, but their favicons are still present.
The favicon may seem like an overlooked element, but we also subconsciously internalize them as part of a website’s brand. This is why we’d love to hear your opinions on a few potential favicon designs. Which one do you like and why? For the sake of discussion, we’ll call them #1, #2, #3, and #4, from top to bottom:
Please share your opinions by replying in the comments sections of this post before Monday, September 15. The Annual Meeting is approaching quickly, and we want to have a fabulous new site to share with you there. See you then!
On behalf of your Web Presence Task Force,
Who doesn’t like to think that all problems should have some kind of solution? While no one is immune to this desire, solving problems can also bring about new ones. Many of us may know this, whether from personal experience or “the lessons of history.” Nonetheless, there remains a tendency to emphasize the positive results that can emerge from “innovations” or “revolutions” in many areas, and with relatively little critique. Certainly within the context of the “Information Age,” this has implications for research and practice in library and information science. Insights from other fields, along with an understanding of the intricate strands of history, can help with figuring out what those implications might be, and perhaps even with considering and addressing them.
What I’d Like to Solve… and Why It Might be a Problem
Nearly a month ago, I wrote a posting on my doctoral research regarding perceptions of musical similarity. Although my actual methodology will entail asking people about this topic, with responses that may or may not pertain to genre, I’m quite keen on the idea of music listeners’ pre-existing musical tastes being used as an entrée for finding music from an unfamiliar genre. The conceit behind this idea is that certain musical and extramusical facets or traits, tempered by variations in one’s emotional state or overall mood, might account for (1) musical tastes that don’t fit traditional genre categories and (2) not liking all music from one’s preferred genres. That, along with my own personal experience, was the initial impetus for my research.
On the other hand, I’ve also considered the concern that such a sophisticated recommender tool might create unintended problems. More specifically, while it could broaden musical tastes laterally, and not in the sense of “cultural uplift,” the hypothetical system could potentially become “totalizing.” (That is, if it were sufficiently scalable.) This was pointed out to me after I gave a presentation related to my topic, wherein a respondent mentioned such a possibility. Basically, while such a system might give people the freedom to explore music in ways that traditional systems do not, it might become too finely-tuned to the more intricate (and even intimate) factors that define our musical tastes. In other words, greater freedom to explore music might also mean less privacy, especially if one has a registered account. A kind of Pandora’s Box, rather than a souped-up Pandora.
Getting with the Programs
Those of us who have haunted academia long enough are aware of the idiosyncratic structures of departments, faculties, programs, schools, and other terms used to identify and consolidate a variety of disciplines. In my case, I’m a Library and Information Science (LIS) doctoral student in the University of Western Ontario’s Faculty of Information and Media Studies (FIMS), which encompasses programs that essentially relate to information and communications. LIS exists alongside Journalism and a variety of programs related to media, including Media Studies (MS).
Essentially, MS examines how various forms of media operate within economic, political, and sociocultural contexts. (And as you might have guessed, the person who mentioned the potentially totalizing nature of the hypothetical recommender system was associated with that program.) To aid with such analyses, MS draws upon a whole host of approaches that fall under the umbrella of “critical theory.” While not comprehensive, below is a brief encapsulation of (1) why you might have shuddered upon seeing the term “critical theory” and (2) what critical theory attempts to do.
Definitions of the scope of critical theory may vary, but essentially its various manifestations critique mainstream power structures and ideologies. Of course, a brief description belies the complexities of critical theory, including the intellectual lineages among various thinkers whose ideas more or less trace back to Marx (with dashes of Freud), as well as the different approaches, agendas, and backgrounds among critical theorists themselves. Admittedly, though, unless one is inclined to study them specifically, such writings can be rather thick to comprehend, and names difficult to keep straight. Since many of the big-name critical theorists tend to come from continental Europe, especially Germany and France, translations provide an additional challenge with which to contend, as well as concepts understood by a narrow intended audience within specific historical contexts. At least to outsiders, some writings can even come perilously close to reading like self-parody, or even glorified tinfoil hattery (except with fancier terminology and without mention of shape-shifters from Alpha Draconis). Nonetheless, critical perspectives are useful for considering how certain mainstream ideologies are embedded (to varying degrees of subtlety, anyway) in the media, ranging from different forms of news and entertainment to the design of information systems.
Although MS is steeped in critical theory, while LIS still tends to shy away from it, some LIS folks work with such perspectives as well, and even teach courses on the topic. An emeritus faculty from my program also co-edited a compilation of fairly accessible essays by other LIS scholars about critical theory, with each one describing how the ideas of various theorists could be applied to LIS. Parts of it, including an introduction that does a better job of explaining things than my brief encapsulation, are available on Google Books.
I also had an opportunity to work last academic year as a teaching assistant (TA) in a first-year course about information and social contexts. This was for the faculty’s Media, Information, and Technoculture (MIT) program, which employs TAs from both LIS and MS. During one of the two terms I TA’d, it was taught by an MS PhD student who took a broad historical approach to information and related media throughout history, from cuneiform to computers. The course was also divided almost evenly between pre- and post-World War II periods. While it didn’t go into great detail about specific big name critical theorists, this is where I first heard (at least to my knowledge) the term “solutionism.” Coined by Evgeny Morozov, solutionism pertains to the primarily market-driven impulse to provide technological solutions to practically any problem, including some that might not be “real” problems at all. After describing a futurist’s hypothetical “smart contact lenses” that could make homeless people invisible to its wearers, Morozov states in his New York Times op-ed piece The Perils of Perfection:
All these efforts to ease the torments of existence might sound like paradise to Silicon Valley. But for the rest of us, they will be hell. They are driven by a pervasive and dangerous ideology that I call “solutionism”: an intellectual pathology that recognizes problems as problems based on just one criterion: whether they are “solvable” with a nice and clean technological solution at our disposal. Thus, forgetting and inconsistency become “problems” simply because we have the tools to get rid of them — and not because we’ve weighed all the philosophical pros and cons.
As pointed out in the course I TA’d, and not much of a surprise given my background in history, none of this is really new. Going back many years, we’ve wanted to find ways to improve our lot in life. Various technologies, including those related to information and communications, have indeed enabled us to do just that. However, especially when various media tout “revolutionary” or “game changing” technology, we all too often focus unquestioningly on the positive outcomes of any new technological advance, and not so much on some of their more concerning aspects. This is certainly true if it suits the ideological stances of interests who already hold power, and who want to keep it that way.
A Brief History of Progress
As my TA’ing experience made me realize more keenly, the dilemmas we face today with regard to information and the emergence of various technologies aren’t really that new. At least within a “Western” context, one can find some affinities with trends that emerged throughout the 19th century. By that time, we had generally placed more faith in ourselves and our observations, rather than in the infinite wisdom of a distant omnipotent superbeing. Of course, religious belief didn’t go away; it just wasn’t quite as central as before. One can easily trace such tendencies back to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The big difference is that the 19th century saw nations developing in earnest their own forms of omnipotence… bureaucracies accumulating the appropriate data, in order to build national ideologies and define various domains of knowledge for usage by the state. As pointed out in one of the course readings:
Between the middle of the eighteenth and the middle of the nineteenth centuries, there arose a new kind of empiricism, no longer bound by the scale of the human body. The state became a knower; bureaucracy its senses; statistics its information (Peters, p. 14).
Also tied with the aforementioned information trends, industrialization (and consequently urbanization) was also taking off at that time, along with science. And it seemed that, with enough effort, we could solve practically any problem and explain practically anything with correctly-applied techniques… even as the world was figuratively becoming bigger, and we had to figure out ways to get a handle on it! Certainly, it seemed a more appealing option than (1) putting faith in a distant omnipotent deity who likely didn’t exist or (2) getting killed for not believing “correctly.” And how could one go back to a “simpler” time, anyway?
In the 20th century, however, it became more readily apparent that an uncritical faith in progress had its own share of problems as well. The sinking of the “unsinkable” Titanic in 1912 was perhaps the first well-publicized and fabled example of this counter-perspective. Furthermore, mass production techniques facilitated the manufacture of machines for mass killing, science could be misused and manipulated to “prove” the superiority (and inferiority) of certain groups, and (courtesy of IBM) efficient systems of tabulation could be used to register people and divide them into categories. All three of these factors are intricately related to the Holocaust and, upon further reflection, the notion of the banality of evil. That horrible things happen when people are “just following orders,” or even when “good people do nothing.” It isn’t always some ur-Satan, evil genius, or “mad scientist” plotting them.
In the course I TA’d, Nazi Germany was presented as “case study” of how our faith in progress and seemingly neutral information can go horribly wrong. Of course, it’s far from being the only example. Under Stalin’s reign, the Soviet Union placed quantifiable “progress” above human lives as well. This was the case with an artificially-created famine that killed millions of Ukrainians, after a number of them had resisted collectivized state-run agriculture schemes. No surprise, given that the Man of Steel himself is supposed to have said, “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”
Such faith in bureaucratization, efficiency, calculation, and technology in a broad sense wasn’t exclusively the provenance of obviously brutal dictatorships. Just to name a few examples from the United States, there was Frederick Taylor’s research into improving efficiency within industrial contexts, as well as innovations in the efficient manufacture of automobiles by Ford Motor Company (which Stalin himself admired greatly; wrong ideology, right technique). And it continued into the post-World War II era, with trying to get a handle on the exponential growth of “information” or “data” (typically related to science and technology) that had emerged during the war, and which had implications for the Cold War arms race. As well, coming to the fore in the 1960s and 1970s was the notion that we would enter a “post-industrial” society, where information would become a more important commodity than manufactured goods.
And that time seems to have arrived.
We’ve been told it plenty of times.
If one thinks about it, and as made sense from the course I TA’d (of whose content I only skimmed the surface here), the threads of bureaucracy and efficiency somehow run quite smoothly from the industrial age to the post-industrial / information age (depending on how one perceives chronological guideposts). And some concerns remain relevant as well, even if the technologies have changed quite a bit. For starters, what information is being gathered about us and why? Why do we have difficulty seeing the ideologies that underlie seemingly “neutral” systems and “neutral” calculations? Why do the positive aspects of new technologies receive more attention than their potential drawbacks… or, why aren’t they at least tempered with a sense of perspective to counter more readily available media hype?
And, of course, for those of us who work with information, what professional duty is implicit in considering all of these concerns? From what other fields might we draw ideas? How do we solve the problem of solutionism, or at least work our way through the related dilemmas and temptations that emerge? Put another way, how can we eat our apple, and have it, too?
Well, the comments section below seems a good place to start. The wonders of technology…
ASIS&T’s staff members and the Web Presence Task Force remain very busy on the Web redesign front. As chair, I wanted to share some updates and get some feedback from our members and readers. I’ll start with our two visual options, and proceed to the content workshop we completed on August 1.
Our visual design options (or, the part of a website that we all love to debate!)
Val Head has been hard at work developing a new visual identity for ASIS&T. Now that we’ve been through a couple of design iterations, I’m thrilled to present our two options to you! Below, you’ll find two options. Each option includes a logo, a typeface, favicons, and an associated color palette.
Please share your thoughts about the two designs in the comments section.
Direction 2: “Connected letters for an inclusive feel with a hint at handwriting and warm but limited palette”
What do you think? Do you prefer Direction 1? Direction 2? Some combination of the two? Neither one? Both? Let us know in the comments. We need to make this decision soon, so please share your thoughts as quickly as possible!
August 1 workshop: Content strategy
On August 1, I joined ASIS&T staff members Dick Hill, Jan Hatzakos, and Vanessa Foss at the ASIS&T Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, for a content strategy workshop. Project lead Kevin M. Hoffman of Seven Heads Design as well as Ahava Liebtag and Talia Eisen from the Aha Media Group were there to guide us. It was a busy day filled with hard work and insight. It was also something of a pilgrimage for me as a hopelessly devoted ASIS&T member. I took this photo upon entering the building:
I spent a night in downtown Silver Spring. It has a relatively lively atmosphere, or at least it has a nice selection of places to eat and drink. I hung out with Kevin and some of his friends at a tapas bar, which is when I met Thomas Vander Wal for the first time. Meeting Thomas was worth the trip alone, speaking as someone whose PhD research involved tagging!
But I digress. This is a website update post, not a travelogue. As I was saying, the content workshop was productive. Here is visual proof of our productivity, courtesy of @7headsdesign:
The purpose of the content strategy workshop, in a nutshell, was to determine our audience and our most important messages in order to determine the best way to deliver Web content to current and potential members.
In the morning, we completed a “persona” exercise, in which we identified important types of people for our site. We came up with librarian, academic, IA professional, student, and industry professional. Then each of us had to construct that person by answering questions about our assigned persona and cutting out pictures in magazines that represented that persona. For example, I created a persona of a female professor and director of her school’s PhD program in information science. She is divorced, has two grown children, shops at Trader Joe’s and local farmers’ markets, uses her laptop rather than her phone or Kindle for most of her digital needs, and so on. Here is my visual representation of Barbara:
Ahava and Talia are using these personas to construct a picture of our forthcoming site’s visitors.
In the afternoon, we completed the identity pillars workshop. In this exercise, we talked about ASIS&T’s “brand” – the pillars of how our association is perceived now as well as how we would like it to be perceived in the future. After several iterations led by Ahava, we emerged with the following. Here you can see the final result – the current pillars are on the left, and the future pillars appear on the right:
The identity pillar exercise was a somewhat exhausting, but also a clarifying, exercise for me. Personally, I’m happy about the amount of insight we produced about our members and our important messages in a day, and I’m optimistic that Ahava and Talia’s work will help us focus our message and our content in ways that will keep current members virtually engaged with ASIS&T as well as attract new members.
I’ll keep you posted! In the meantime, please share your thoughts about the two visual design options in the comments.
Today’s post updates you on ASIS&T’s recent happenings surrounding our website: a server upgrade as well as progress toward a new visual identity and virtual presence.
What happened to the Web server?
Good news! The asist.org web server underwent a server upgrade last weekend. It’s now residing on a much faster server. Apologies to anyone who visited the site last weekend and encountered missing pages or other oddities. ASIS&T is happy to report that the transition is complete, and the site is lightning fast now.
What’s going on with the Web redesign?
As the chair of the ASIS&T Web Presence Task Force, I’m excited to report all the exciting changes that are forthcoming for ASIS&T’s website and visual branding. You might remember that a few weeks ago, ASIS&T announced that it had contracted with Seven Heads Design (sevenheadsdesign.com; @7HeadsDesign) after a thorough RFP-based selection process. We got to work right away, and things are progressing nicely so far.
The founder of Seven Heads Design – @kevinmhoffman – and others working with him on our site’s redesign led a project kick-off workshop on Wednesday in Baltimore. There were about 15 of us present, including ASIS&T staff members, Seven Heads Design team members, and ASIS&T members. I was thrilled to witness all these amazing people coming together for a commonly shared goal of an improved web presence for our association.
The day started with individual introductions and statements about what we would each like to achieve by the end of the day. Kevin and @rozduffy reviewed preliminary findings from the informal interviews they’ve already conducted with a cross-section of ASIS&T members. @vlh led some analysis and discussion about visual branding, and everyone got to critique other organizations’ logos as well as all-important ampersands. She rightly pointed out that the “&” is an important part of our brand, and so its typeface should be chosen carefully. (I think I’m in the “sans serif” camp now, but then again, I also had too much coffee at the start of the morning.)
After lunch, we did some prototyping exercises in which we worked individually and in groups to think about how certain pages could be designed to incorporate interaction, new technologies, static and dynamic content, and so on. (Some delicious hotel-supplied cupcakes enhanced this hard mid-afternoon work.) We moved on to a presentation from @tkadlec about design patterns and how they’ll be used for a consistent visual identity. We had a teleconference call with ASIS&T’s Web server administrator, and then we received an overview of the project schedule from @iamjolly. We followed up with some discussion about how we can all work together to meet the deadlines he’s set for us. Kevin concluded the day with some final thoughts and a check-in with each of us to see whether our hopes for the day had been realized.
We’re optimistic that we’ll have a redesigned site, or at least something close to completion, by the ASIS&T Annual Meeting in November, and we’ll observe it with a grand unveiling. Join us for the celebration!
What can you do to help?
This is a major initiative for ASIS&T that has required – and will continue to require – significant time and resources to yield a successful redesign process. To keep the project manageable, the Task Force will work closely with Kevin’s team to provide feedback about their progress on a regular basis. However, I’ll keep the membership informed about our progress throughout the summer and fall as major milestones occur, and I’ll ask for your feedback at various points. Please use this blog as a place to share your thoughts about anything related to the redesign. We want to hear from everyone.
We have a busy few months planned as we work on the technical development, the visual branding, the content, and everything else. Next week, a few of us will attend a content strategy workshop (personas and identity pillar) led by Kevin and the content experts on his team. I’m looking forward to it, and I’ll keep you posted about it.
I just read a really interesting new article in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology called “Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior and performance in Web search on large and small screens” that got me thinking about several things I’d like to post here. Jaewon Kim, Paul Thomas, Ramesh Sankaranarayana, Tom Gedeon, and Hwan-Jin Yoon, all from The Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, wrote the article. It is available to ASIS&T members in “early view” via the ASIS&T Digital Library.
The researchers used eye-tracking equipment to look at how 32 people performed and interacted with Web searches on large screens, such as a laptop screen, vs. small screens, such as what you would see on a smartphone. In total, the team gathered data for 640 searches, which were either informational (“How many spikes are in the crown of the Statue of Liberty?”) or navigational (“Go to the homepage of the Canberra Cavalry baseball team.”) They also conducted post-test interviews with the participants.
You can read the article for details, but in summary, the researchers concluded that in this study, it required more work for participants to get information from the links on the small screens, and they scanned results more narrowly on the small screens. That being said, participants took similar amounts of time to click on their first link on both screen sizes, and they achieved similar amounts of success in finding the answers to the queries on both screen sizes.
Recommendations include placing a link to a phone-optimized version of a document within a full-size document, providing additional content for the top search results on phone screens, and using Page Up/Page Down buttons on the phone screen version to encourage “bigger picture” eye movement.
So, why was I so excited about this article? Many reasons.
For starters: two of my main areas of interest are usability and visual information. How photojournalism professionals interact with digital images was the subject of my dissertation, and I published an edited book on non-text information in 2012.
I read extensive amounts of literature about visual information when I was studying for my PhD – from vision science, cognitive psychology, art, you name it. One thing I took from all that reading is there are specific things that cause people to look at certain areas of whatever they’re looking at, whether it’s a photograph or a Google search results screen. In the case of a photograph, we might fixate on it because we love some aspect of it: the people in the picture, the color of a flower, whatever is important to us, as Patrick Wilson eloquently pointed out about text documents in his 1968 book Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. In the case of a Web page, we might stare at one area of the page because it’s interesting, but we might also be confused by it, as the article’s authors noted in the literature review.
I’ve seen this confusion when I’ve conducted usability studies. When people look at a page for a long time, they’re not always sure what they need to do to get the results they want. (This appears to be especially true in the case of library websites and online catalogs, because library interfaces are perpetually complex and confusing to many people.) I’ve never used eye-tracking hardware, but I’ve used other techniques such as simple observation as well as Morae software. It fascinates me to watch people use a mouse to point to where they’re looking on the screen. You can’t do that on a phone.
I’ve also thought quite a bit about screen sizes in the past. I was invited to write a JASIST review of Katy Börner’s 2010 book about scientific data visualization, Atlas of science: Visualizing what we know. The large book, which won ASIS&T’s Best Information Science Book Award in 2011, features several beautiful data visualizations, but the book is not large enough to see the visualizations well enough to comprehend the data represented in the maps. I noted in my review:
How will these spatial challenges be met as visualizations are used more frequently in the future to convey datasets, trace projections, or find and view information in search engines? It seems the disparities in the separate trends toward smaller electronic devices and the level of detail in science maps may need to be addressed before the potential of visual documentation can be fully realized.
The small and large screen size issue can be applied to almost anything we view these days. I love the convenience of my Android phone’s size, but I can’t comfortably watch a movie on it. I’ll search, read, and check social media on it when I’m feeling lazy or don’t have access to my laptop. When I’m at home and need to get real work done, I use my dual monitors that I’ve connected to my laptop. (As an example, I can’t imagine writing this post on my phone, but I’ll use it if I’m out for a walk and need to respond to a colleague’s quick question.)
Stated differences between search engine screen presentations on large and small screens that the authors presented in their paper made me want to compare them for myself, so I Googled dog parks in Seattle on my laptop:
And on my phone (first and second screens that appear, respectively):
As we can see here, the laptop version features images of Seattle dog parks across the top of the screen and a map view of Seattle dog parks; standard search results appear below them. The initial phone screen focuses on map and locations, with the standard results on the second screen. These decisions make sense to me because if we’re out somewhere with our phones, we’re probably more likely to be looking for something nearby our location, whereas we could be doing almost anything on our laptops. GPS-enabled phones further promote finding things by location.
Well, I could go on forever. But I won’t. Or maybe I already have.
At the end of things, articles like this Kim et al. article are important for our field because they bridge the theoretical and the practical. The article concludes with specific recommendations for mobile interface design that a search engine or app company could start implementing immediately. I’ve believed for years that information science is an applied field. So much of what information science researchers do (or should do) has the potential to create tremendous impacts on how today’s connected world finds and receives information. Information science practitioners such as IA professionals do research every day to understand their users’ needs, but may or may not have the methodological expertise that trained researchers have. We have both IA professionals and academic researchers in our association, but we barely interact with each other.
Why don’t our research and practice worlds work together? Why don’t information scientists do a better job of communicating and applying our vital knowledge and research with the rest of the world? Do you ever go anywhere these days without seeing people who aren’t glued to their phones – and could probably use some help with finding what they’re trying to find? (I don’t.)
So concludes the inaugural content-rich post of The ASIS&T Blog. Let’s go forth and change the field… or at least talk about doing it on this blog!