Brian’s comment at RemainingRelevant should resonate with many of us:

Something to consider about why libraries end up with bad interfaces (at least as far as catalogs go) is that it might be that the people who use the interface (and help the public use it) are not the people who decide which interface to use.

When it comes to demanding better from vendors [...] consortiums like mine seem to place more emphasis on “cheap and reliable” than in “useful to the patrons.”

More than identifying individual vendors, I’d like this to be a discussion about our decision making processes. Let’s look carefully at how we got here — not to point fingers (for we are all responsible), but to plot a path out and try to make sure we never find ourselves here again.

As Karen points out: it’s not enough to nod our heads in a knowing sigh, “the genius moment for you or anyone else will be figuring out what to do with it!”

It’s corny, but I’m serious. If you’ve taken the pledge, you’ll know to look skeptically at every product. You’ll ask yourself and a mix of likely users how it could be better. And you won’t buy anything or renew any contract on anything that sucks. There is no consortium, no institution that can afford to throw away money on products that can’t deliver the ease of use and quality of experience that users expect from competing (and more familiar) tools elsewhere on the internet.

The real challenge, of course, is making sure everybody involved with every decision-making process understands this.

compare, decision, decision making, market, market forces, process, software, suck, sucks, sucky, the pledge, training, usability, vendors

Peter Caputa dropped a comment on Jeff Nolan’s post about Zvents. The discussion was about how online event/calendar aggregators did business in a world where everything is rather thinly distributed. Part of the problem is answering how do you get people to contribute content — post their events — to a site that has little traffic, and how do you build traffic without content? The suggestion is that you have editorial staff scouring for content to build the database until reader contributions can catch up, and that’s where Peter comes in, suggesting that content and traffic aren’t where the value and excitement are:

At the end of the day, though, we need to bring the people that plan events together with the people that attend them, so that the planning happens together. Pulling massive amounts of data together and getting eyeballs doesn’t help event planners. What event planners need are tools that help them engage the attendees in the decision making process, promotion process and the documentation process of events. That’s what we aim to do.

We’ve been talking about social calendaring, but Peter’s comments obviously address a much larger concept, one that suggests the web really is turning things upside down. Now we’ve heard it from a dot-commer. We’ve heard it from the Pew Internet Project study on teens. And we’ve heard it from Jenny Levine when she talks about the “4Cs” of “conversation, community, commons, and collaboration.”

collaboration, commons, community, conversation, decision making, documentation, inclusion, involvement, jeff nolan, pete caputa, promotion, social calendaring, social software