The Accidental User Experience Librarian

05.12.2009

I’ve been thinking about writing a series of posts on how a librarian (or info staff worker) can make the shift from traditional information staff duties to user experience work. I’m interested in this because I’m convinced that more libraries will begin to incorporate web tools and technologies to enrich user experience, and to improve usability and findability on their websites. I’m also convinced that it’s not enough to have an outside expert with little to no experience with working on library projects come in and recommend solutions that don’t hold water under continued exposure.

Steve Psomas created a list of UX competencies a few years ago that provides a good foundation to build on. Head on over to his post if you want to read the full details, but in a nutshell, a UX practitioner should look to these competencies to establish the groundwork and deliverables associated with doing UX work:

  • Information Architecture
  • Interaction Design
  • Usability Engineering
  • Visual Design
  • Prototype Engineering

As my own experience in the UX field matures, I’ve come to understand that it’s almost impossible to expect that one person will have all of these skills (although I know more than a few freakishly talented souls who do). Most people exit library school with an excellent theoretical foundation in the structure of information, creation of taxonomies, and how to design information for maximum efficiency and ease of use. With that in mind, it’s no wonder that so many LIS graduates end up working as information architects. But how can an organization build an in-house UX team when so few librarians or information staff come to the organization with these skills under their belts? What are the parallels between these competencies and librarian skills and competencies? That’s the question I hope to answer. If you have ideas, please leave them in the comments.

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    I look forward to this series. I would never call myself a "user experience librarian," but I have done some small-scale usability testing in the past, and am starting another round of testing now.

    Here is a question I have been thinking about. Books like "Don't Make Me Think" encourage us to test the site with a small number of users since we are testing the site, not the users. But there is always a temptation to try to characterize how the average user behaves just based on the small number of testers. Any strategies for keeping that straight in everyone's mind as you test and discuss results? Does that even make sense?

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    I look forward to this series. I would never call myself a "user experience librarian," but I have done some small-scale usability testing in the past, and am starting another round of testing now.

    Here is a question I have been thinking about. Books like "Don't Make Me Think" encourage us to test the site with a small number of users since we are testing the site, not the users. But there is always a temptation to try to characterize how the average user behaves just based on the small number of testers. Any strategies for keeping that straight in everyone's mind as you test and discuss results? Does that even make sense?

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    Then put me down as someone as someone who would like to hear more about contextual inquiry, task analysis, and recruiting the "right" participants.

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    Then put me down as someone as someone who would like to hear more about contextual inquiry, task analysis, and recruiting the "right" participants.

  • Cecily Walker

    Steve, would the series be more helpful if it focused on techniques? Or are there other areas you think would be good to know as well?

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    Really, I think you should take it where you want to go with it. I mention some techniques because I'd be interested in expanding my dabbling in user experience beyond usability testing. But in re-reading the original post, I see you may be interested in higher-level ideas about how UX and "traditional" library work fit together? I'd love to read that, too. Not everything needs to be immediately applicable to hands-on work.

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    Really, I think you should take it where you want to go with it. I mention some techniques because I'd be interested in expanding my dabbling in user experience beyond usability testing. But in re-reading the original post, I see you may be interested in higher-level ideas about how UX and "traditional" library work fit together? I'd love to read that, too. Not everything needs to be immediately applicable to hands-on work.

  • Cecily Walker

    I haven't read Don't Make Me Think in a while, but I think the problem isn't in the number of users, but in the idea that testing is the sum total of user experience research. I think it's just one tool in the arsenal. In an ideal world, we'd do contextual inquiry, observational studies, focus groups, market research, and task analysis along with usability testing to round out what we know about our users. However, if testing is the only tool you have, then the answer is to try to do more testing, even after the site has launched.

    You also have to make sure the participants you've recruited to help you with testing are really representative of your intended audience. For libraries, it's more complicated than it is for something as specific as, say, a web-based banking application, but I believe it can be done well.

  • Cecily Walker

    I think there's definitely room for technique and theory in a series like this. My problem is that even though I have a MLIS degree, this is my first time working as a librarian. Beyond doing reference and information service work at the desk, I don't really have a clear concept of what a "traditional" librarian job involves. Part of this process will involve learning what that means exactly, and then seeing where I can draw parallels.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

    I think there's definitely room for technique and theory in a series like this. My problem is that even though I have a MLIS degree, this is my first time working as a librarian. Beyond doing reference and information service work at the desk, I don't really have a clear concept of what a "traditional" librarian job involves. Part of this process will involve learning what that means exactly, and then seeing where I can draw parallels.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

    Steve, would the series be more helpful if it focused on techniques? Or are there other areas you think would be good to know as well?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/cecily cecily

    I haven't read Don't Make Me Think in a while, but I think the problem isn't in the number of users, but in the idea that testing is the sum total of user experience research. I think it's just one tool in the arsenal. In an ideal world, we'd do contextual inquiry, observational studies, focus groups, market research, and task analysis along with usability testing to round out what we know about our users. However, if testing is the only tool you have, then the answer is to try to do more testing, even after the site has launched.

    You also have to make sure the participants you've recruited to help you with testing are really representative of your intended audience. For libraries, it's more complicated than it is for something as specific as, say, a web-based banking application, but I believe it can be done well.

Previous post:

Next post: