Issues in User-Centered Design in LIS

The purpose of this article is to survey the landscape of user-centered design in LIS. We begin the article by exploring the history of the “user-centered paradigm,” looking first at the historical schism between behavioral science and computer science, and then surveying some of the methods of user-centered design. In the next section we present examples of technological artifacts that reflect the basic functions of information systems—artifacts designed to collect, organize, and retrieve information—as a way to present some of the difficulties and opportunities that surround the creations of user-centered design. Specifically, we look at how user-centered design relates to personal collections, social bookmarking, finding aids, Web interface design, information architecture, visualization systems, and personalization and adaptive search. The article then steps back and looks at design through the wider lens of values, asking the question, how are users represented (or misrepresented) through cultural, ethical, and political forces that influence information system design? The article concludes with a summary of the major issues to emerge from our survey of the current state of user-centered design and from this we extract some key lessons vis à vis research and teaching in LIS. Introduction Information professionals are designers. We build information systems, services, spaces, and objects that we hope will help users find, use, create, and share information. In this article we focus on the design of technology to support information and archival services and we do so from a 722 library trends/winter 2011 user-centered point of view. Considering the needs of the user is a core competency of librarianship as reflected in documents produced by professional organizations such as the Reference and Users Services Association (RUSA, 2003). LIS has been playing with the principle of user-centered design for over two decades, and arguably, it is no longer necessary for us to defend it. Rather, we are now in a position to review user-centered design in a critical, reflective, and multilayered manner that reveals the rich array of experiences in LIS. The article takes such an approach, its purpose to survey the landscape of user-centered design in LIS. We try to answer the following questions: What is the state of user-centered design in LIS? What exactly do we mean when we speak of user-centered design? Where are the opportunities? What are the challenges? While the scope of the article is large, our intent is to highlight only the most pressing issues to provide a broad overview for readers who are at a starting point in their exploration of user-centered design. To investigate these issues in context, we provide concrete examples or case studies of artifacts designed to make information accessible and easy for the end user to find, choose, use, and share with others. While artifacts designed for the purpose of making information accessible to people are not necessarily technological (the design of physical spaces, library programs and policies, work practices, and community and social structures, for example), the emphasis of this article is on information technology. Think of this article as unfolding in three concentric circles. The user and the user-centered paradigm lie at the core. Surrounding the inner circle of the user are the functions of information systems—the ways and means used to build collections, organize and eventually retrieve information objects. Over-arching all are the values embedded in the process. Reflecting this model of concentric circles, we begin this article by exploring the history of the “user-centered paradigm,” looking first at the historical schism between behavioral science and computer science, and then surveying some of the methods of user-centered design. In the next section we present examples of technological artifacts that reflect the basic functions of information systems—artifacts designed to collect, organize, and retrieve information—as a way to present some of the difficulties and opportunities that surround the creations of user-centered design. Specifically, we look at how user-centered design relates to personal collections, social bookmarking, finding aids, Web interface design, information architecture, visualization systems, and personalization and adaptive search. The article then steps back and looks at design through the wider lens of values, asking the question, how are users represented (or misrepresented) through cultural, ethical, and political forces that influence information system design? The article concludes with a summary of the major issues to emerge from our survey of the current state of user-centered design and from this we extract some key lessons vis à vis research and teaching in LIS. 723 bowler et al./user-centered design The User-Centered Paradigm User-centered design, as its name suggests, reflects the user, typically from a cognitive, affective or behavioral point of view, as well as the social, organizational, and cultural contexts in which users function. The shift from a system-centered to user-centered perspective in LIS arose from the emergence of information retrieval systems that could be operated without the intermediation of experts and a need to understand how to better serve a new clientele of end users. In the age of disintermediation, where the users are the ones who actually search for information, understanding users’ information behavior was a critical step to designing usable systems. This shift in thinking was articulated by Dervin and Nilan (1986), who identified a research gap in the practice and evaluation of information systems and appealed to the LIS community to place user-defined information needs and uses at the center of its endeavors. Nahl outlined this shift toward a user-centered paradigm in her article, The User-Centered Revolution (1997), and in an update in 2003, The User-Centered Revolution: Complexity in Information Behavior. Bishop and Star (1996), in their study of the then-emerging research area of social informatics, placed the user in the broader context of society, writing that the user “is thrown as never before into a collective or group mode, where the results of information seeking become information to be modified and passed” (p. 315). Although the shift from a system to user point of view was indeed a revolution, it is now commonplace for information professionals to consider users (their clientele) in the design of systems, services, and spaces. Recent developments with the participatory Web make the user-driven perspective all the more compelling. Given the empowerment of users in the Web 2.0 world, information professionals may reasonably ask if they still have a role to play in designing information environments. Historically, there has been a gap between information science (the “system/computer” people) and library and archival science (the “service/ practice” people). This gap has often been seen in terms of the difference between research and practice. With the increased use of digital, networked information tools in daily practice and the emergence of the digital library and archive, it is impossible to separate the service from the system. In this context, understanding the user becomes more critical than ever. Bishop and Star (1996) framed the problem differently. Instead of the research/practice divide, they saw the problem in terms of a schism between two research traditions—computer and information scientists on the one hand and social scientists on the other. The result was practices that led to the “exclusion of people and informal processes by computer and information scientists and exclusion of formal models and the properties of machines by social scientists” (p. 309). In their exploration of design science in information systems research, Hevner et al. (2004) picked up on the theme of “schism.” The conflict, 724 library trends/winter 2011 they write, is between behavioral science and design science. Behavioral science seeks to “develop and justify theories (i.e., principles and laws) that explain or predict organizational and human phenomena surrounding the analysis, design, implementation, management, and use of information systems.” Design science (which has its roots in engineering) seeks to “create innovations that define the ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and products through which the analysis, design, implementation, management, and use of information systems can be effectively and efficiently accomplished” (p. 76). The creation in 1999 of the American Association of Information Science and Technology’s SIGUSE, a special interest group concerned with “people’s behavioral and cognitive activities as well as their affective states as they interact with information,” marked a first step toward the bridging of this divide (ASIS&T, n.d.). Still, the behavioral/design gap has remained. Scholars of information behavior continue to study users using systems while scholars of computer science and engineering continue to experiment with new designs that, often only post-design, tell us anything about how users go about finding, seeking, and using information. The recent call for papers for the Information Seeking in Context 2010 conference highlights the urge to bring these two paradigms together, stating “we shall be particularly interested in papers in any of these areas that address the connection between information research and information practice” (emphasis added). User-centered Design To design is to “create, fashion, execute, construct according to a plan” (Merriam-Webster). User-centered design (UCD) focuses “on users through the planning, design and development of a product” (Usability Professionals Association). User-centered design is a repertoire of design methods and a philosophy. UCD places users at the center of the design so that the outcome of a design—the artifact—can be easily used by the people for whom it was created. The point of user-centered design is not just to create something that works but rather to create something that works for the intended user, something that is usable. Usable designs should “make it easy to determine what actions are possible at any moment; make things visible, including the conceptual model of the system, the alternative actions, and the results of actions; make it easy to evaluate the current state of the system; follow natural mappings between intentions and the required actions; between actions and the resulting effect; and between the information that is visible and the interpretation of the system state” (Norman, 1988, p. 188; see also Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, & Preece, 2004; Vredenbrurg et al., 2002). Usable designs created for the purpose of facilitating information practices have a specific purpose: they should make it easy for people (users) to find, choose, use, and share information. The defining characteristic of UCD is that users are involved in the design of a functioning artifact. The degree to which they are involved 725 bowler et al./user-centered design can vary, from a onetime, usability test after the artifact has been built to projects where users work alongside designers from inception to creation. In the next sections, we look more closely at the user and then at methods of UCD.