This article was updated to more accurately reflect UC Berkeley's relationship to the document. On February 29,
Library Terms That Users Understand by John Kupersmith, a reference librarian at UC Berkeley, was added to the University of California's eScholarship repository. The document reviews 51 usability studies, most of them conducted by university libraries, to determine “test methods and best practices for reducing cognitive barriers caused by terminology.” Key findings include that the average user success rate for finding journal articles or article databases is only 52 percent. Commonly misunderstood terms include acronyms and brand names, subject categories, and the words “database,” “library catalog,” “e-journals,” “index,” “interlibrary loan”, “periodical,” “serial,” “reference,” and “resource.” Common correctly understood terms include “find books”, “find articles” and other combinations using natural language target words
that correspond to the end product the user is seeking
. Kupersmith recommends that libraries avoid frequently misunderstood terms; use natural language equivalents on top-level pages, and adding explanations of potentially confusing terms in mouseover, tooltip, glossary or graphic form. He also recommends that if a top level menu choice is ambiguous, libraries use an intermediate page; and provide an alternative path for predictable wrong choices, as well as being consistent across publications. Kupersmith further recommends that libraries test what terms users understand, and take advantage of data from libraries with similar user populations; the document offers an array of testing methodologies.
Add Comment :-
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!
Walter Underwood
Every discipline has its jargon, and that is good, because jargon is efficient. I work on search engines, but I've learned quite a bit of library technology because I don't like to reinvent things. As a result, I can talk MARC and FRBR or stopwords and hapax legomena, but I don't expect people outside the discipline(s) to understand it. An "index" is something quite different in a library and in a search engine. I work with a lot of smart people, and almost none of them understand the guts of search engines. It isn't their responsibility to understand my efficient jargon. I'll introduce a very few terms where it really helps, but only then. You can provide entries to specialized jargon, but if you can make it work without that, why not? Hint: The terms people type into search engines are a great source of their own vocabulary. Perhaps "recipes" instead of "cookery".Posted : Mar 29, 2012 10:46
John Jackson
Read Nina's respose. +1 all the way. Also, is it just me or is this really a discussion about descriptive and prescriptive meaning (a la lexicography). And as many linguists will affirm: descriptive wins in the end. So librarians: pick a different word when talking with patrons. Or get out of the way.Posted : Mar 28, 2012 08:55
Tim
Finding a common ground in order to communicate with library users is not dumbing things down. Librarians suffer from the curse of knowledge and we need to be better at communication. It's not the users fault they don't understand us.Posted : Mar 28, 2012 08:21
Kathy Dempsey
I'm thrilled to see Kupersmith's work getting more notice. I've been recommending his website in just about every presentation I've given in the past few years. As a marketing expert, I feel it's vital for librarians to realize how much our internal jargon works against us in our everyday communication. On your websites, brochures, social media pages, signs -- everywhere -- we should check for these commonly misunderstood words and change them to natural language! Is it "dumbing down"? With acronyms and brand names, certainly not. Words like "catalog" and "resource" have many meanings. I prefer to say we're "clarifying" our terms or making them "user friendly."Posted : Mar 28, 2012 07:52
Nina McHale
Imagine that you went in to see a medical specialist about a personal health issue, and that person spoke to you in professional jargon the way he or she would present a paper about the issue at a medical conference. How would that make you feel? Does a doctor communicating to you in plain, non-medical English (or whatever language you may speak) mean that he or she is "dumbing it down" for you, or would you appreciate it if the doctor communicated with you about your health in ways that helped you to understand and resolve your problem? Sure, it would be nice if users knew what "catalog" and "database" meant. Some do. Precise terms do make it easier to communicate, and in the medical example above, sure, you would come to learn a lot about the terminology and concepts surrounding your particular health issue. However, if we (continue to) design library services and web sites based on the assumption that our users are all fluent in our professional language, we're just setting up roadblocks and further alienating them from all of the great things that we can provide. They won't see the value in libraries and library services, and where does that leave us? So, go ahead and tell me that I don't have a sense of humor. I DON'T have a sense of humor about this because it's this kind of arrogance and outright refusal to see things from our customers' perspectives that is killing libraries and our profession. Kupersmith's research has been around for years-I've quoted it multiple times in my own academic research-and it truly disturbs me to see jokes still being made about how stupid library users are. In any other profession or industry, this shocking disrespect for the people we are supposed to serve would be inexcusable. Why are we surprised to see support, financial and otherwise, drying up? Maybe instead of building a giant advocacy machine to keep breathing life into what we do, we should just treat our customers with the respect that they deserve?Posted : Mar 28, 2012 07:39
Mark
There is a reason for the existence of precise terms. You say you want to find books? We have books. [point to rows of shelving units marching off into the distance] There they are!Posted : Mar 27, 2012 01:44
Ibrahim
No matter how hard librarian tried to explain to the users library terminology, users don't care about it as long as they find the information that they are seeking for.. !!Posted : Mar 24, 2012 08:39
Alan Wylie
I agree with you Lanie, there's far too much jargon used in libraries and by librarians, we need to consult with users about what they find helpful and useful otherwise we will never be truly be inclusive! I used to work in a library authority in the UK, and they named the new cental library 'The Technology Learning Centre' and wondered why no one was coming in, the public through no fault of their own didn't realise it was a library!Posted : Mar 23, 2012 08:08
Lanie Breathwaite
Please don't call patron's dumb by stating "dumbing down." Users don't know what libraries are talking about because librarians don't know what they are talking about. If a library is rapidly throwing out new terms and repackaging patron systems then it is no wonder patrons are registering confusion. I've seen librarians laugh about patron confusion. But, it's really no laughing matter because a patron will seek other venues for information if he or she cannot obtain it from the library. This behavior affects how libraries are viewed and ultimately whether or not libraries deserve additional funding if patrons refuse to use them. Librarians need to think about how to upgrade their attitude and learn how to be more effective with respect to patrons. Either that or get out of the field of librarianship.Posted : Mar 23, 2012 07:34
Baba O'Riley
If dumbing things down is the order of the day, here are some proposed translations for the linguistically challenged students: Book: "Them paper thingies what my perfesser wants me to use" Periodical: "Those things like you see at the checkout counter" Find Articles: "Google" Database: "Google" Resource: "Google" Search: "Google" Index: "Google" E-journal: "Google" Serial: "Capn Crunch" Library: "Starbucks" Interlibrary Loan: "Another Starbucks"Posted : Mar 23, 2012 06:19
Rosa
I am all for making things clearer, but for heaven's sake, shouldn't people actually learn a few basic terms like "index"? That's hardly library jargon. An index is also what's in the back of your textbook ... And 'database'? That's a computer term too, not just library 'jargon'.Posted : Mar 23, 2012 02:12
Alan Wylie
see my own blog for similar issue in UK libraries http://www.dontprivatiselibraries.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/library-glossary.htmlPosted : Mar 18, 2012 02:00