Le Simplegadi

In generale, i cataloghi online delle biblioteche universitarie offrono agli studenti un’interfaccia con un’ampia casella di ricerca. Questo modello di interfaccia intende fornire un’esperienza di ricerca simile a quella di Google. Tuttavia, a differenza di Google, i discovery systems includono anche la navigazione a faccette, che permette di raffinare i risultati della ricerca. Chi non conosce il dominio d’interesse trova problematico questo approccio, perché necessita di una guida concettuale per comprendere meglio lo spazio informativo prima di eseguire una query. La ricerca esplorativa è un processo aperto caratterizzato da attività cognitive e di apprendimento che possono migliorare le competenze di information literacy.

DOI: 10.17456/SIMPLE-248

Parole chiave: Library Discovery Systems, Information Literacy, Search User Interfaces, Faceted Search, Thesauri.

Bibliografia

Antelman, Kristen et al. 2006. Toward a Twenty-First Century Catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 25, 3: 128-139.

Bates, Marcia J. 1988. Rethinking Subject Cataloging in the Online Environment, https://pages. gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/rethinkingcataloging.html (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Bates, Marcia J. 1990. Where Should the Person Stop and the Information Search Interface Start? Information Processing and Management, 26, 5: 575-591.

Bates, Marcia J. 2007. What is Browsing – Really? A Model Drawing from Behavioural Science Research. Information Research, 12, 4, https://informationr.net/ir/12-4/paper330.html (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Bates, Marcia J. 2016. The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface. Information Searching Theory and Practice. Berkeley (CA): Ketchhikan Press, 195-216.

Battelle, John. 2005. The Search. How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Portfolio.

Bawden, David. 2011. Encountering on the Road to Serendip? Browsing in new Information Environments. Allen Foster & Pauline Rafferty eds. Innovations in Information Retrieval. Perspectives for Theory and Practice. London: Facet Publishing, 1-22.

Borgman, Christine L. 1986. Why Are Online Catalogs Hard to Use? Lessons Learned from Information-Retrieval Studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37, 6: 387-400.

Borgman, Christine L. 1996. Why Are Online Catalogs still Hard to Use? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 7: 493-503.

Butterfield, Kevin. 2012. Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). Marcia J. Bates ed. Understanding Information Retrieval Systems: Management, Types, and Standards. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 529-536.

Calhoun, Karen et al. 2009. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want, Technical Report. Dublin (OH): OCLC, https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/reports/onlinecatalogs/ fullreport.pdf (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Dijck, José van. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity. A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.

Flusser, Vilém. 2000. Towards a Philosophy of Photography. London: Reaktion Books.

Frampton, Jessica R. & Jesse Fox. 2020. Monitoring, Creeping, or Surveillance? A Synthesis of Online Social Information Seeking Concepts. Review of Communication Research, 9: 1-42.

Hearst, Marti A. 2009. Search User Interfaces. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.

Hildreth, Charles R. 1984. Pursuing the Ideal: Generations of Online Catalogs. Brian Aveney & Brett Butler eds. Online Catalogs, Online Reference: Converging Trends. Chicago (IL): ALA, 31-56.

Hildreth, Charles R. 1993. An Evaluation of Structured Navigation for Subject Searching in Online Catalogues. Doctoral Thesis. London, City University London, https://openaccess.city. ac.uk/id/eprint/8376/ (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Hillis, Ken Michael Petit & Kylie Jarrett. 2013. Google and the Culture of Search. New York-London: Routledge.

Hjørland, Birger. 1992. The Concept of ‘Subject’ in Information Science. Journal of Documentation, 48, 2: 172-200.

Hjørland, Birger. 1997. Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Information Science. WestPort (CT): Greenwood Press.

Hjørland, Birger & Lykke Kyllesbech Nielsen. 2001. Subject Access Points in Electronic Retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 35: 249-298.

Jeanneney, Jean-Noël. 2008. Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge. A View from Europe. Chicago (IL)-London: The University Chicago Press.

Johannessen, Hilde. 2017. Teaching Source Criticism to Students in Higher Education: A Practical Approach. Siri Ingvaldsen & Dianne Oberg eds. Media and Information Literacy in Higher Education. Educating the Educators. Cambridge (MA): Chandos Publishing, an Imprint of Elsevier, 89-105.

Julien, Charles-Antoine et al. 2012. Capitalizing on Information Organization and Information Visualization for a New-Generation Catalogue. Library Trends, 61, 1: 149-161.

König, René & Miriam Rasch. 2014. Reflect and Act! Introduction to the Society of the Query Reader. René König & Miriam Rasch eds. Society of the Query Reader: Reflections on Web Search. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 10-15, https://networkcultures.org/query/ wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/06/0.Introduction.pdf (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Larson, Ray R. 1991. The Decline of Subject Searching: Long-term Trends and Patterns of Index Use in an Online Catalog. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 42, 3: 197-215.

Long, Chris Evin. 2000. Improving Subject Searching in Web-Based OPACs. Evaluation of the Problem and Guidelines for Design. Journal of Internet Cataloging, 2, 3-4: 158-186.

Marchionini, Gary. 1995. Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

Marchionini, Gary. 2006. Exploratory Search: From Finding to Understanding. Communications of the ACM, 49, 4: 41-46

Marchionini, Gary & Ryen White. 2007. Find What You Need, Understand What You Find. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23, 3: 205-237.

Markey, Karen. 1984. Subject Searching in Library Catalogs. Dublin (OH): OCLC.

Markey, Karen. 2007. The Online Library Catalog. Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained? D-Lib Magazine, 13, 1-2, https://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/markey/01markey.html (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Matthews, Joseph R. et al. 1983. Using Online Catalogs: A Nationwide Survey. New York (NY): Neal-Schuman.

Maynard, Patrick. 1997. The Engine of Visualization: Thinking Through Photography. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.

Moulaison, Heather L. et al. 2015. What’s Driving Discovery Systems? The Case for Standards, Conference Paper. Cape Town (South Africa): IFLA, https://repository.ifla.org/items/ c476815b-7c12-4f83-a353-d79b47e254dc (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Nelson, David & Linda Turney. 2015. What’s in a Word? Rethinking Facet Headings in a Discovery Service. Information Technology and Libraries (June): 76-91.

Nicholson, Scott. 2000. A Proposal for Categorization and Nomenclature for Web Search Tools. Journal of Internet Cataloging, 2, 3-4: 8-28.

Nielsen, Jakob. 2005. Mental Models For Search Are Getting Firmer, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/mental-models-for-search/ (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Novotny, Eric. 2004. I Don’t Think I Click: A Protocol Analysis Study of Use of a Library Online Catalog in the Internet Age. College & Research Libraries, 65, 6: 525-537.

Olson, A. Hope & John J. Boll. 2001 [2nd ed.]. Subject Analysis in Online Catalogs. Englewood (CO): Libraries Unlimited.

Purcell, Kristen et al. 2012. Search Engine Use 2012. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center, https://www.ris.org/uploadi/editor/1341041853PIP_Search_Engine_Use_2012.pdf (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Rainie, Lee & Janna Anderson. 2017. Code-Dependent: Pros and Cons of the Algorithm Age. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center, http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/02/08/code-dependent-pros-and-cons-of-the-algorithm-age (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Rubanowice, Robert J. 1975. Intellectual History and the Organization of Knowledge. The Journal of Library History, 10, 3: 264-271.

Schaffner, Jennifer. 2009. The Metadata is the Interface. Better Description for Better Discovery of Archives and Special Collections, Synthesized from User Studies. Dublin (OH): OCLC, https:// www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2009/2009-06.pdf (consulted on 25/05/2025).

Silipigni Connaway et al. 1997. Online Catalogs from the Users’ Perspective: The Use of Focus Group Interviews. College & Research Libraries, 58, 5: 403-420.

Stacey, Alison & Adrian Stacey. 2004. Effective Information Retrieval from the Internet. An Advanced User’s Guide. Oxford (UK): Chandos Publishing.

Taylor, Arlene G. 1995. On the Subject of Subjects. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21, 6: 484-491.

Tennant, Roy. 2005. Digital Libraries: “Lipstick on a Pig”. Library Journal, 130, 7: 34.

Turner, Frederick. 1991. Rebirth of a Value. Meditations on Beauty, Ecology, Religion, and Education. New York: State University of New York Press.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2012. The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry). Berkeley-Los Angeles (CA): University of California Press.

Wang, Yongming & Jia Mi. 2012. Searchability and Discoverability of Library Resources: Federated Search and Beyond. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19, 2-4: 229-245.

Wheatley, Alan. 2000. Subject Trees on the Internet. A New Role for Bibliographic Classification? Journal of Internet Cataloging, 2, 3-4: 115-141.

White, Ryen W. & Resa A. Roth. 2009. Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm. San Rafael (CA): Morgan & Claypool.

Yu, Holly & Margo Young. 2004. The Impact of Web Search Engines on Subject Searching in OPAC. Information Technology and Libraries, 23, 4: 168-180.