Hi. I just joined this site and to be honest I find it overwhelming.

Perhaps one suggestion would be to remove many functions and simplifying things to the core functions:

groups/chat
book sharing
book reviews
networking

Just an idea.

GL

Joining any new site is overwhelming until you get used to it. To suggest that features should be removed just because you don't understand them yet seems...well, frankly, silly and selfish. Especially since you've only been on the site for two days.

It will become less overwhelming as you use it more. There is a newly-implemented help function and there are groups like FAQ and Site Talk where people can ask questions. Have fun!

Message edited by its author, Aug 2, 2009, 6:04pm.

Not to mention for many people the "core functions" will be different. For me, the core functions are: cataloging, and collective maintenance of LT data (combining, CK, etc, and the Talk that supports that), and to some extent looking at books shared with others and recommendations. Groups and reviews are pretty far down my list.

PS Welcome! I should have said that first! You might also want to check out the Tour, if you haven't yet.
http://www.librarything.com/tour/

Some other useful links here:
http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.p...

Message edited by its author, Aug 2, 2009, 6:18pm.

> 1

None of the things you mention are the "core function" of LT. The core functions of the site are book cataloguing and sharing of book data.

I have to agree with everyone else -- joining a site, and saying "I'm not currently using these features, so please get rid of them -- when among the features you aren't using are the original reason LT was created, and what is the core function for a big fraction of the audience -- seems exceedingly selfish. If you don't want to catalog books, nobody will think any less of you, but saying "Get rid of this feature!" is a good way to get off on the wrong foot among those of us for whom cataloging is the entire purpose for being here.

I really imagine that the original poster / Spiritmale did not mean "delete the features" but rather "get rid of them from the main interfaces", i.e., simplify the main interface. That seems to be both the most charitable and the likeliest meaning of Spiritmale's suggestion.

So, Spiritmale, just FYI the complexity of the interface is an ongoing issue. The fact is that there are a lot of features here designed for hard-core collectors and catalogers, and figuring out ways to integrate those features with the basic functionality (whatever that is defined as) is not so easy. There's a "redesign librarything" group that looks at design & interface issues, and of course right here -- "Recommend Site Improvements" -- is a great place for specific suggestions.

Basically, this is a site for hard-core book collectors. Suggestions about how to make the site better (i.e., more accessible) for people who just like reading tend to be ignored at best, and more often harshly rejected, as seen here.

Of course it's clear, as lquilter pointed out, that your post could be interpreted charitably as a request to hide complex features, rather than actually delete them. Given the fact that the owner of the site recently ruled that we should assume the best about new users' intentions, this is certainly the better interpretation. Unfortunately, though, I don't think comments that the site is too complex are ever going to favourably received.

So at this point, I think the best advice I can give you is that GoodReads.com is reported to be friendlier, and you might consider giving it a try instead.

Message edited by its author, Aug 3, 2009, 9:56am.

Actually, I think the fact that LT is so function-rich that it can accommodate lots of people with very different "core" uses of the site is one of its strengths. That said, the interface could be probably simplified and streamlined (still waiting for those drop-down tabs), and they've been talking about a redesign. (Personally, I don't find GoodReads visually better: pages seem cluttered, and the ads add to the distraction.) And LT is usually friendly, in my experience.

Maybe there's another way to come at this. Spiritmale, what is it, do you think, that makes the site overwhelming? Is it the navigation and interface? Do you think some features should be made more prominent in the navigation, and others less so? What pages on the site are you using, and which ones do you find confusing? Would more, or different, help guides help?

I bet that was actually Tim. He wants to remove more tabs and is building up the case that the site is too complicated for some. :)

Following rsterling's line of questions: Would it help if it was easier to hide the things you are uninterested in (on the Home tab, for instance)? When I set up my own account a last week, I had a little disorientation period myself until I started skipping over the home tab and collapsing many sections of the works page to get some early "breathing room." Of course, now I'm slowly re-exposing bits a pieces of the works page as I find out what they are useful/used for. I don't know for certain that I would have taken the time to reach that point if it had not been so easy to temporarily "simplify" the works pages and customize the Your Books view (as I am already trying to leave behind EndNote for being too inflexible/limited).

Hi ragmana, and welcome! It is possible to customize the stuff on the Home page/tab. There's a "customize" link at the top, so basically you can decide exactly what you want to see on that page and hide what you don't, move the order of things around (though not across the right and left columns) and even delete almost everything from that page if you want. Some people also use their profile as their main launching pad, if you find that simpler. The customization option on the works page is new, but I can see how that would be useful for simplification.

I wonder if the "tour" and "getting started" pages ought not be revamped a little now to point people towards key features, including customization options. For instance, there's nothing on the tour or short guide about the Home page, but that's likely the first thing a new user will be taken to (am I right?), and there's no doubt that's a bit of information overload. It seems like at the least the tour ought to have a page on the homepage, since it's now the default for everyone once you're signed in. Also, maybe the first time someone comes to the homepage after joining LT, there could be a light box that explains what it is and how to customize it, and that also points them toward editing their profile, adding books, and other things new members are likely to want to get started doing.

(I can certainly see how it would be more confusing and overwhelming to join now than when I joined nearly 3 years ago, when there wasn't yet a "home" page and the default page once you logged in was either the catalog or the profile - can't remember which, but both are kind of self-explanatory.)

Edited to add: the tour should probably also mention collections prominently in the discussion of adding books and maintaining your library. The screenshots are also mostly well out of date now.

Message edited by its author, Aug 3, 2009, 8:30pm.

Rsterling: Well, that is helpful and entirely in plain sight. Can't see how I missed that link, but thank you for calling my attention to it! (Ironically, about three or four years ago I was debating between joining LT or using my university-provided copy of EndNote to catalog my home library, and picked EndNote because LT just didn't accommodate all the details I wanted to enter. Given that, I think I deserved to be thrown in the deep end for awhile now that I am checking LT out in earnest.)

I might make a relevant suggestion--if such suggestions are desired--for helping LT appeal to burgeoning catalogers. I think I have seen elsewhere that Tim and others are looking for LT to reach out to new users, and I suspect that the site is well-known enough by now that this means new _sorts of_ users (people who were not already attracted to the site). It would be silly to change the site current users love into something it is not. It would not be silly to add features, as LT has obviously been doing for some time and as Tim clearly intends to do for some time coming. It _might_ not be silly (or it might be) to minimally redesign the landing-pages for new users so that they are initially compact and only open into full functionality as users choose to dig further into all the features of interest to them.

I initially wrote several thoughts on designing the learning curve of the UI (with a comprehensive bibliography of RPGs on the way), but cut it all lest my RL reputation for long-windedness carries over to here. Instead, the summary:
- Bring in the tools and experience of game design strategies to craft a rewarding and self-sustaining learning curve for new users. (Spend some time reading Daniel Cook's work on game design at his blog Lost Garden.)
- Tutorials are usually dull, and manuals only help certain sorts (patient sorts) of new user navigate a complex system. The wiki is either a tutorial for new users or a manual for experienced users, so do not rely on it. Build the learning curve into the site itself, so that users learn by doing.
- Allowing the site to unfold (rather than defaulting to the complex setup and letting users fold it up later) also promotes more natural exploration of the site. Users are not exposed to a feature until they at least express a curiosity about it ("Say, what is Common Knowledge? Let's just click here to see. . ." instead of "Good lord, what are all these blank lines? What am I supposed to do with this page?").
- Consider trivial rewards as a way to encourage users to explore the site, and think about how to pace them. Obviously use of the site and of new features is rewarding in itself. Some reward systems already exist on LT, for specific things users do that serve the community. Similar rewards for "Novice Achievements" (perhaps better named "Tyro Achievements" around here?) might engage some new users long enough to teach them the ins and outs of the site. (Xbox Achievements are a remarkably successful example of how trivial "rewards" motivate player engagement.) In fact, it might encourage some established users to try new features (which, of course, entail new Achievements) in order to keep their bare-bones not-a-novice status "official."
- The above is mainly meant to be a temporary substitute for new users that are not yet engaged in the community. Eventually, involvement in the community and the inherent merits of the site itself are what will keep users engaged and cataloging! Moreover, new users should probably have the alternative option to approach LT just as it is now--exposed in all its what-the-heck-is-all-this glory.

(Facetious note) Back to waving the "academic researcher" flag rather than the "novice" flag: This sort of this would take a long time to implement and some serious consideration, so please focus on container/contained first.

> 12

I think all your points are very good ones. I think LT is very much designed for power-users and not very well designed to take casual users and turn them into power users - or let them remain casual if they so choose!

You idea of 'unfolding' rather than forcing them to 'fold it back up' strikes me as a good one. I think many sections of LT could use a very critical UI eye. I also think that if LT wants growth, these are the places to focus newer projects - make site accessibility a priority.

HelpThing is a good step toward this, but you're right about tutorials!

You idea of 'unfolding' rather than forcing them to 'fold it back up' strikes me as a good one. I think many sections of LT could use a very critical UI eye. I also think that if LT wants growth, these are the places to focus newer projects - make site accessibility a priority.

I absolutely agree with this.

Me too. Adamantly. The UI really isn't very intuitive.

#13, #14

Yes it is a good idea.

The reason you find very few data-oriented websites (and indeed stand-alone) applications doing it is because it is bloody hard and leads to all kinds of other problems.

For example in ragmana's post he mentions Users are not exposed to a feature until they at least express a curiosity about it . What does that mean for CK? Do you not see series, awards, original publication dates etc at all? Do you not see the author CK at all? It seems a huge reduction in the amount of valuable data available. Won't new users continually ask for fields to store such data - as they will not know about CK? Do you apply similar to combination, collections, tags? The code would be a lot more complex.

That is not to say that the UI can't be improved - it can. It is just that to do it properly it is fairly time-consuming work that pisses off as many people as it pleases.

#15

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned. - Bruce Ediger.

Now I would agree that LT takes a bit of learning - however like the Unix shell once learnt it is very easy to use.

>16 "Users are not exposed to a feature until they at least express a curiosity about it . What does that mean for CK?"

Current behavior (on the works page, as an example): The CK section (and every other section) is exposed on the works page by default, but can be collapsed and exposed again by clicking a button.
Proposed UI refinement (but do not apply these changes to existing users): Switch the default for most (but not all) sections to "collapsed" and let the user expose and collapse them with the same button as we have now. The design and the function of the works page is completely unchanged, but new users see a list of data categories instead of a massive data dump. The user sees what categories of information are available to them on that page, and more readily than they do now since more of the categories are "above the fold." You do not want to collapse every section, however, so that the "collapse/expose" function of the headers is more readily apparent. All the headers remain visible, so few people will ask for "the new fields" and it will be easy to tell the few that do where to find them.

Overall, the idea is to apply the existing "collapse/expose" feature over more of the site, think hard about what to leave exposed or collapsed as the default for new users. No reduction in data, no pissing anybody off. Less overwhelming for new users, so we get fewer suggestions like Spiritmale's that do apparently piss people off. Net win.

I would probably leave Zeitgeist the glorious mess that it is now, just because it communicates to new users the real power under the hood.

>17

Everything is easy to use once learned; that is a trivial analytic truth, like saying every mother is female. The question is not whether to dumb things down, but whether to adjust the learning curve.

Think of the reasons for doing this in terms of The Long Tail: Right now, LT provides a service/product that appeals to a particular group of power users--often people who pride themselves on enjoying this sort of thing, many honest-to-God librarians. LT occupies a very good position on the long tail, but a very narrow one. It fails to appeal to a very large group of potential users, and could reach them (without sacrificing features!) by modifying the UI.

I should stress that I am not suggesting anything too novel or untested. Look at the examples of "pushbutton" spectrometry replacing analytic chemistry in manufacturing that Baird discusses in Thing Knowledge. (Hint: Spectrometers won out in large part because anyone could be taught how to work the machine.) Spend some time researching why Word beat out WordPerfect. (Hint: It "hid" all the powerful word processing features so as to be simpler for regular users. I am recommending something less drastic, but of course LT is a heck of a lot less complicated than a full-featured word processor.)

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 1:40pm.

The problem with collapsing data is that people won't know what fields already exist.

Spend some time researching why Word beat out WordPerfect. (Hint: It "hid" all the powerful word processing features

That is far too glib. It may have helped a little but that certainly wasn't the entire story. For example it doesn't explain why Ami Pro/Lotus Word Pro or even Microsoft Works didn't succeed instead (both of which equally hid complex features).

For example the early versions of Word didn't do terribly well in the retail market despite Wordperfect being rather slow at getting a Windows product out and slower at adjusting to the new paradigm. Word did well amongst individuals because of the dominance in the corporate market. Word does well in the corporate market due to the marketing and corporate muscle of Microsoft.

While WordPerfect retained a majority of the retail shelf sales of word processors, Microsoft gained market share by including Word for Windows in its Windows product on new PCs. Microsoft gave discounts for Windows to OEMs who included Word on their PCs. When new PC buyers found Word installed on their new PC, Word began to dominate market share of desktop word processing. ... In November 2004, Novell filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft for alleged anti-competitive behavior - from Wikipedia.

And do I ever miss WordPerfect. Word is yet another Microsoft product that thinks I'm stupid ("Do you really want to do that?" Yes, dammit--stop changing it back!) I loved the level of control I had with WP.

Whoa--I'm starting to sound like "I don't need no stinking WYSIWYG, I code all my HTML in Notepad." (Just because I can, why would I want to? ;-)

>21.

That's why I use LaTeX for document layout. WYWIWYG.

I loved wordperfect too ....

I agree that there is a lot for new users to take in, and think it can probably be improved. That said, I don't want to see LT neutered because its easier for newbies.

I suspect that LT will only appeal to those that are already very heavily into data-keeping, and are comfortable/familiar with computers (people who aren't afraid to explore and are self-motivated to do so). Trying to make it something else or one size fits all will not make it better.

23> I think LT does appeal to that demographic, but I would not say "only." We non-casual users interact with each other more that we do with less obsessive members on the site, which surely gives us a skewed perspective.

I suspect many of those who are not in our demographic (in some manner) are on Goodreads and the other sites like it, or soon leave for them.

I have friends who are there because they don't want all the complexity or data that LT offers. They are not even interested in trying LT, so the observation isn't just based on my in-group interactions here.

I suppose we could try LibraryThingLite.

After following this conversation I'm a bit confused.
May I ask what is complex about using library thing?

I admit I found LT after googling book discussion group, but can I just say (as a middle-aged computer novice who didn't learn IT at school and had only used the public access computers in the library to look for books) that I find using LT easy to use.

I'm not saying that I've used all the features but what I have discovered I find understandable and not at all scary.

I might not have found exactly what I was originally searching for but I am very happy to discover features I wasn't looking for-

A place to catalogue my books with a wonderful cataloguing system which I find easy to use.

Wonderful helpful people and a wider world.

I haven't even looked at Goodreads or any other social book sites because I am very happy with what I've found here.

ETA- I am a bit of a technophobe and if someone hadn't given me a computer I probably would never considered getting one.

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 12:29pm.

> A place to catalogue my books with a wonderful cataloguing system which I find easy to use.

I agree there is no better place for cataloging on line.

PS to #27- I stopped looking for an online book group because of what I did find here.

19> The problem with collapsing data is that people won't know what fields already exist.

I think the idea is to collapse data by default not hide it. Like on the work page you can collapse each of the sections, but you can still see that they are there and open them up if you feel like it.

30: Yeah, but for Common Knowledge?

Whatever.

CK is already abbreviated in the CK Short Form so you can collapse the full form if you wish. New accounts could have the full form collapsed by default.