Comments on: David reviews Glaser on RSS. In a word: Oy. http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/ Exploring Medical Librarianship and Web Geekery Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: My Weblog » links for 2006-07-18 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/comment-page-1/#comment-56 My Weblog » links for 2006-07-18 Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:19:55 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/#comment-56 [...] davidrothman.net » Blog Archive » David reviews Glaser on RSS. In a word: Oy. (tags: rss web20) [...] [...] davidrothman.net » Blog Archive » David reviews Glaser on RSS. In a word: Oy. (tags: rss web20) [...]

]]> By: Life as I Know It » Blog Archive » OPAC Blog Posts - A List http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Life as I Know It » Blog Archive » OPAC Blog Posts - A List Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:18:56 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/#comment-31 [...] Interfaces & Expectations of Users - In this post David Rothman responds to comments from an earlier post. He argues that Amazon has a good interface because people can quickly find what they need - and that this is how OPACs should work. David also expresses some skepticism about the usefulness of “social applications” as library tools - believing they may best serve as tools for outreach. [...] [...] Interfaces & Expectations of Users – In this post David Rothman responds to comments from an earlier post. He argues that Amazon has a good interface because people can quickly find what they need – and that this is how OPACs should work. David also expresses some skepticism about the usefulness of “social applications” as library tools – believing they may best serve as tools for outreach. [...]

]]> By: Dean C. Rowan http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Dean C. Rowan Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:30:21 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/06/david-reviews-glaser-on-rss-in-a-word-oy/#comment-14 I haven't RTFA, but no matter, because I am more interested in your response, Mr. Rothman. It points out a tension rarely expressed on blogs about librarianship, which tend to buy into the "give 'em what they want...and more!" line of delivering library services. Any notion that library (or, in this instance, "information technology") users might need to bone up just a bit on the tools they use is anathema. Users have acquired "expectations" from Amazon and Google, for instance, that libraries must satisfy in order to succeed, so the argument goes. And the latest neat yet unproven mechanism for such satisfaction is "social networking" applications: blogs, wikis, folksonomies, and the like. And of course RSS. But you show how users who don't understand a technology's limitations need to be coaxed into understanding them if they are going to reap the technology's benefits. I wish this message were more widely expressed (although I'm sure it is widely held, if only tacitly). I wish we wouldn't so gullibly consume the utter silliness dished out--now for decades--by AI proponents and their cognitive scientist cognates. These are nifty realms for boys and their toys, but the promise and the performance are remote coordinates in these fields. Yet we're urged, like Glaser, to believe that technology will not merely help us to make decisions (that is, only if we're very careful when we deploy it), but that it will make the decision for us. And if it's really good, technology will resolve our problems even before we knew we had them, thus dispensing with any sense that we have "preferences" at all. I haven’t RTFA, but no matter, because I am more interested in your response, Mr. Rothman. It points out a tension rarely expressed on blogs about librarianship, which tend to buy into the “give ‘em what they want…and more!” line of delivering library services. Any notion that library (or, in this instance, “information technology”) users might need to bone up just a bit on the tools they use is anathema. Users have acquired “expectations” from Amazon and Google, for instance, that libraries must satisfy in order to succeed, so the argument goes. And the latest neat yet unproven mechanism for such satisfaction is “social networking” applications: blogs, wikis, folksonomies, and the like. And of course RSS.

But you show how users who don’t understand a technology’s limitations need to be coaxed into understanding them if they are going to reap the technology’s benefits. I wish this message were more widely expressed (although I’m sure it is widely held, if only tacitly). I wish we wouldn’t so gullibly consume the utter silliness dished out–now for decades–by AI proponents and their cognitive scientist cognates. These are nifty realms for boys and their toys, but the promise and the performance are remote coordinates in these fields. Yet we’re urged, like Glaser, to believe that technology will not merely help us to make decisions (that is, only if we’re very careful when we deploy it), but that it will make the decision for us. And if it’s really good, technology will resolve our problems even before we knew we had them, thus dispensing with any sense that we have “preferences” at all.

]]>