In a recent post Distance from the default: Web browser extensions, Lorcan Dempsey wonders about what detrimental effects on the uptake of additional functionality in a browser etc. result from the effort needed to install the extension.
I'd actually mashed this thought with another - the usability of bespoke interface devices for high performance tasks - in a potential post I'd been doodling offline a couple of days ago...
So given the apparent synchronicity, here's that doodle...
In October last year, following weeks of hype and speculation, the Flock browser – a major reworking of Firefox customised to support social networking activities such as blogging and social bookmarking – was launched to limited success. In this post, I'd like to explore whether there is the potential for a customised browser for use on public access terminals in libraries across the world?
Many have argued that the functionality offered by Flock is available to users of Firefox in the form of extensions, that can provide additional functionality, and customised skins that can transform the visual presentation of the browser. Members of the Flock camp do not deny these claims, although they seek to rise above them arguing (rightly, I think) that most users are not willing to install extensions or customise the appearance of their browser. (However, it must be said also that such users are perhaps unlikely to use anything other than the most widely used browsers, indeed are perhaps unlikely to use anything other than Internet Explorer with its default settings (except perhaps for customising the homepage, and being tricked into installing toolbars from the major search engines whilst installing other pieces of software!).
What came to mind last night was the idea that perhaps there is a role for a browser 'sponsored' by the library sector (libraries, ILS(??) vendors and so on) for use on public access computers in libraries.
Why? Another part of the jigsaw was a podcast I listened to on my commute to work this morning, from Bran Ferren at Applied Minds? on user interfaces (IT conversations, web2.0). His argument was that most user interfaces for complex/high performance human tasks are in fact complicated, custom interfaces, rather than generic interfaces.
Now – access to the library catalogues is increasingly provided within libraries using the same web based interface that users can access over the web. This is a good and a bad thing. Good – because users can gain confidence in using the interface within library and can then use it comfortably at home, or work. Bad, because this interface is generic in the sense that it is (often) quite a basic web page rather than a customised application.
The rise of AJAX technologies has enabled the creation of rich interface applications within a browser that look a lot like real clients that you might otherwise find on the desktop, but the library interfaces I have seen to date are not that rich.
Why should libraries use a browser based catalogue interface rather than a custom client that has been designed for the purpose of effectively accessing library services? There is no way we should expect a user to have to install an application on their machine to access library web services (which is why protocols such as Z39.50 are so painful to mash compared to RESTfully defined XML based web services!) but why can't we have these powerful tools to support high performance tasks in the physical library context. After all, if searching library information systems isn't a high performance task, why are information professionals so defensive about providing Google style search interfaces to their users?
This is where a customised browser might come in – it can provide high levels of functionality embedded in the browser. Similar functionality can be provided through the provision of extensions to a user's browser. If a user can be educated to use the extended library browser, and they perceive the value of the extended functionality it provides, they can be shown how to achieve similar levels of functionality in their browsers at home.
Even if a fully fledged customised browser (a la Flock) isn't adopted, then customised browsers with a suite of extensions and added search functionality (such as ) can easily be provided in library foyers. Users might be encouraged to try out such enhanced/extended/customised browsers for themselves by borrowing USB memory drives with portable, customised browsers preloaded on to them (this is perhaps another area where libraries might support wider training functions within an organisation – loaning out software applications in a portable format to users so they can try them out without having to install the software on their own machine).
Libraries could also host web pages containing useful extensions, pre-customised browsers for download etc.
Posted by ajh59 at January 20, 2006 12:28 AM