Not So Distant Future

A panel discussion on databases at the SLJ Summit in D.C. raised some important concerns about database vendors. I think it would behoove them to listen to these concerns if they want their consumer market(k12 librarians and k12 students) to keep using their products.

In this arena, I’d say, Google has got it right. One stop shopping, ease of use, user friendly interface–all what a K12 student/teacher would want.

Some of the database companies are trying–creating widgets that are easily embedded on library webpages so you don’t have to navigate the database menu, for example, which I applaud. And databases without widgets, why don’t you have them yet?

But I think they could all stand to take a lesson from Google in understanding the way they are used by students.

Most users don’t care “where” the information came from–they just want the answer and they want it to be simple and quickly accessible.

The interface needs to be clean and simple. Yes, having a widget helps to give students a nice easy gateway into the database, but if once they get to the database it’s a bewildering myriad of information sources, what navigational tools are there to help them at that point? When are there “too many” bells and whistles, especially for the K12 market?

If we have to “teach” how to use the database site features, then they are too complex. One of my favorite interfaces is Ebsco’s Searchasaurus for elementary grades–it’s attractive, easy to navigate, colorful and appealing. And the name is catchy as well.

But for most, when the results list from a search comes back, is it simple and clear to read? Gale, I love the tabs you have, but frankly do students see all those tabs? Is it user friendly for them? Or should all the sources be sorted together?

Shouldn’t vendors tap into some of the most commonly used search engine designs and just base their designs on a similar format so that students can move easily and have familiar signposts? Just like all books have indexes in the back/table of contents in the front–why can’t we have some level of user interface uniformity that makes it easier for K12 students.

In this rush to gain consumers, databases offer far more sources/choices than the average K12 student could ever use. For example, instead of each developing their own bookmarking system, why don’t they partner with Diigo or delicious and use a common system? Why reinvent the wheel?

What database vendors don’t seem to understand is multiplicity–there are many databases vying for their attention. They design their site as though students will ‘live’ on that one site–getting to know it well, knowing all the features of it, understanding how to navigate it and what sources it offers, etc. While this may “occassionally” prove true, generally students flit on, look for something, and move off.

They are not an environment where they “live” like Facebook–nor do I predict they will use the database sites that way in the future. I guess it’s a matter of understanding the purpose of the database–which is to provide information from other sources quickly, efficiently, and easily–so that users can move on in their research to other things.

Naming things–why not call them what they are? Call an ebook an ebook, for example. And in general, the naming of databases is lacking. Google is catchy, their logo is simple and clean. Can you say the same for Ebsco, Gale, Newsbank, Lexis Nexis, etc.?

When I say EBSCO or GALE to our students it’s like holding up a reference book and calling it by the name of the publisher–it carries no meaning to students at all, has no “name recognition” for them, and I see their eyes glaze over. How about some more “hip” naming devices that tap into the web 2.0 flavor? Like Ebsco Searchr or Ebbie or Galicious or …..you get the idea.

My last request is simplify, simplify, simplify for the K12 market. Make it clean, simple, user friendly and make your product easy to use.

After all, you (vendors) and we(librarians) know how fabulous it is to have articles and journals and images at our fingertips, and the vast array of what is available. But the databases don’t really exist for us, they exist for the end users–students, public library patrons, etc. And we shouldn’t be having to “convince” them how fabulous they are–their “fabulosity” should shine forth because of good design, user friendly interfaces, and catchy branding that draw users to the site. Like Seth Godin writes about in his book Tribes–the tribe draws together at a site because they are drawn there, not because they are “told” to go there.

And in case you haven’t seen it, Joyce Valenza has created a rather catchy Youtube song to convince you that changes are needed:

A few days ago I wrote a post trying to get attention of database designers to a few things, namely making searching more convenient and fun for students so they would use the databases more frequently.

One particular thing I mentioned was embeddable search widgets.  After investigating and some legwork on my part, I discovered that some of our database companies do now provide widget search boxes:  EBSCO, GALE, and Facts on File.    The jury is out on a couple of companies, and a few have indicated they do not currently provide this service(include Lexis Nexis which surprised me!)

In any case, although the designs are not hip, it’s heartening to see that this option is now available.

Also, I do have to say Kudos to World Book for their new design, which is much more user friendly!

Now this is stuff only a librarian could probably love, but in the interest of fairness, I had to correct myself!

Photo credit:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasmeet/2440466050/

I’m going to be blunt in this post.  Databases are dead.  (Okay, maybe that is a bit dramatic.)  And who would mourn their loss?  What value do they add to our internet experience?

Both Joyce Valenza and I (and I’m sure scores of other librarians) have probably written similar posts in the past asking database vendors to improve their wares.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I personally think databases are very helpful to students–obviously getting good sources of information that are accurate and current and informative is a good thing.  They make one stop shopping easier for students.

However, unless database companies make some changes the writing is on the wall in this era of shrinking budgets….

1.  Databases are dead unless they develop an interface like this:

instead of this:

Students and teachers alike just want to search.  They don’t care which particular database has the article. They’ll winnow their choices out once they get results.

And If they really care which source they are using, which on occasion they do, they can use something called “Advanced search.”  (or the librarian can help them use it)–which can be a simple button on the toolbar.

2. Databases are dead unless they get more “hip.” Databases aren’t hip for high school students.  Facebook is hip, texting is hip, Deviant Art is hip, but databases, nope.  Why can’t portals to research be fun and hip?  Why don’t they look more fun?  

Ebsco Kids search is called “Searchasaurus” and has a island with clickable icons;  Newsbank’s Kid search has a hounddog sniffing out the facts.   But the high school search pages?  Text, and more text, too many menu choices, and clutter.

3. Databases are dead unless they can have a box like this on the toolbar.  (or as Joyce Valenza says, are a widget you can embed on your own webpage.)

No one wants to wade through three or four screens just to begin a search.

4.  Databases are dead unless they realize that Google (and other sites) are beating them at their own game.

At the college level, perhaps this is  a different matter.  But if you are talking 9-12, the database companies need to get with the program.  The more offerings on Google, the more database companies need to really focus on promoting their value–promoting it via fun advertising pitched at k-12 students, promoting it via clever and witty interfaces–promoting the creativity of research.

The market is getting tougher as the economy worsens and school districts are having to make tough choices.   Will that drive changes in the database market?