Okay, we know his behavior wasn't always exactly saintly, but to ask "Was Dewey the anti-Christ?" seems a little harsh. This is the question posed by Beth Dempsey in her article "Power users: Designing buildings and services from the end user's viewpoint transforms access for everyone" (Library Journal 130, no. 20, December 2005, pp. 72-75). Apparently the DDC "violates the principles of good information architecture on multiple levels;" and, instead of using Dewey numbers on signs and shelves, libraries should follow the chain bookstores' lead and "put cookbooks on a shelf marked 'Cookbooks'." Here at Dewey Manor we're in full agreement with the main thrust of the article, which is that it's often difficult for library users to find their way around in library buildings, but that there are a few simple steps that librarians can take to help users more easily find the stuff or the services that they want. Hey, better signage -- what's not to like? But we'd like to submit that it's not really the case that libraries have to choose between Dewey numbers and verbal labels for subjects. Many libraries have signs that use a combination of the two -- which can only be a good thing because the Dewey system provides a number of benefits that you don't find in the average bookstore: (a) a way of describing subjects that is independent of any natural language, (b) a standard order of main classes, and (c) hierarchical arrangement of topics within main classes, and that's just for starters. For the user whose first language may not be English, and who would appreciate the opportunity to browse shelves of works on different but related topics, arranged in a systematic, standardized order that only needs to be learned once, and only to the level of detail that meets the needs of the individual, surely a combined DDC/verbal system of signage can only be helpful? Or ... did Dewey really get it so wrong? Dear readers: let us know. (And thanks to Alice for pointing us to the LJ article from It's all good.)
Power Users!
How 'bout if the "Reference Desk" just becomes the "Huh?" station. There can be some computer terminals with links to amazon.com instead of a catalog. No, wait, maybe just cut to the chase and have a gift shop instead. Those moldy, dusty, space-wasting things...patrons... wait, no, the books, should just recycled into Starbucks(TM)cups.
Next: "simplifying" and "stripping" the population.
Who needs "arts and culture" when you can have "health & fitness?".
But seriously folks:
"At Carnegie, a user who uses the OPAC once knows that she’ll be able to translate her search to the library’s physical space for any inquiry."
How's she going to do that if everything but "automotive" and "technology" have been dumped?
Does EVERYTHING on earth now need to follow a retail model? What's most disturbing about that article is the complete lack of critical insight into these modest proposals.
Posted by: AntBee | January 05, 2006 at 01:03 PM