Can libraries make everyone happy?

“Design is intelligence made visible”

Alina Wheeler

After the last two modules, I’ve been mulling over the complex design challenges that seem specific to libraries. The space needs to be welcoming to all yet tailored to your heaviest users, constantly changing yet still familiar, designed for the future yet practical in the present, designed with user input yet still able to fulfill staff needs, the list seems to go on and on. The advice world is full of statements like “ you can’t make everyone happy at the same time”, however the HLL model seems to demand just that. How is this possible? Or perhaps a better question, is this possible? Unexpectedly, I found a lot of inspiration about how to approach these questions in a reading from INFO202 by Judith Weedman, Design Science in the Information Sciences, which acknowledges the lack of developed design theory in the LIS field while presenting applicable design theories from many other disciplines. I found several of these “outside of the field” design theories really useful as framework to examine the HLL ideals of inclusivity and participation, particularly in the design and use of library space.

Both/and thinking

“ I am for richness of meaning rather than clarity of meaning; for the implicit function as well as the explicit function. I prefer “both-and” to “either-or,” black and white, and sometimes gray, to black or white.”

Robert Venturi

As we consider how we can be all things to all people, we must stop thinking about library design goals in the binary either/or mindset, and transition to the both/and mindset. With thoughtful planning, libraries can be simultaneously quiet and loud, a place for education and happiness, a scaffold for community building and a refuge for solitary pursuits, welcoming to teens and the elderly, and actively recruiting new members while satisfying the “core users”. The word planning is the key here, library space must be deliberately configured for diversity of user needs and preferences, flexibility of use, and the possibility of unforeseen problems and opportunities. In Michael Casey’s zoom presentation on 2/24/21, he describes the new Gwinnett County libraries’ use of collapsible walls, furniture on wheels, and other decisions that allow for flexibility and future changes.

Uncertainty

“If you limit your choices only to what seems possible or reasonable, you disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is compromise.”

Robert Fritz

While uncertainty can be a source of fear and anxiety, it also has the power to enact positive changes. This fluidity is often a catalyst for creativity, surprise, and outside-the-box thinking. As Weedman explains , creativity is “the necessary response to conditions of uncertainty” (p.1499). We, as HL librarians, must accept that we can only move towards to our goals by working (and living) in a state of constant uncertainty. This is a tenet of the HLL, and should be framed as an opportunity. David Kelly founder of the design firm IDEO explains (Weedman, p.1499), successful design must be ready “to take risks in a creative leap into possibilities that are not yet defined and whose consequences are not yet visible”. Uncertainty injects possibility into everything that it touches; the delightfully unexpected, a sense of play, and innovation are all hallmarks of a head-on approach to uncertainty. After all, the HLL asks us to fulfill needs that users don’t even know they have. We must also recognize the importance of saying “yes” to unexpected patron requests, in order to be open to educational and enrichment opportunities from unanticipated sources.

Inclusion is a process,

“The Alternative to good design is bad design. There is no such thing as no design.”

Adam Judge

I loved Ciara Eastell’s description of libraries as heterotopia’s; “what a beautiful sounding word” I thought. On further inspection it didn’t mean what I thought it did—I was thinking “a utopia for diverse communities”, instead it proves to be much richer and more interesting . My understanding of the library as a heterotopia, is as a small universe reflecting the rest of the world yet somehow separate—indefinitely accumulating the records of humanity. As we bounce back the world’s reflection, we should aim for the best of humanity, welcome to all. However, we must remember that inclusion is never finished, it’s an on-going process and we must always do better. Library settings must be consciously designed to be inclusive. While we may choose to encourage “silos of interest”, we must do so in a way that asks everyone to dance .

Compromise is failure, and that’s okay

“The requirements for design conflict and cannot be reconciled. All designs for devices are in some degree failures, either because they flout one or another of the requirements or because they are compromises, and compromise implies a degree of failure”

David Pye

While the above quote pertains to objects, I believe that it can be applied to the idea of whole library design; at some point in the process you can’t “have it all”. When both/and planning isn’t possible, libraries must compromise. This should be undertaken with as much transparently as possible, keeping in mind user feedback, horizontal staff input, and using the library’s mission statement to meet institutional goals. It should be done a way that avoids the worst examples of “design by committee”, because bad design is still bad design even if a bunch of people were involved. Library buildings themselves have often been places of beauty, inspiration, and delight. I believe that this is a tradition worth continuing as we navigate new roles for the library.

Failure is educational

“Don’t bunt. Aim it out of the ballpark”

David Ogilvy

While it may be tempting to play it safe, doing so often leads to staid outdated libraries in danger of dissolution. We must be open to failure in order to break ground on new ideas. We can return to the idea of the HLL as a garden, plant many seeds and thin all but the strongest ideas. We can never fully anticipate what’s on the horizon; while we may be making the best choices that we can with the information that’s available, we must acknowledge that we may still be wrong. Fear of failure must not be the impedient to change; failure itself is a tool. As Weedman describes in regards to engineering, “Structural failure, not success, improves the safety for future generations of a design. A failed structure is a counterexample to the engineer’s hypothesis and shows what cannot be done; a structure that stands without incident often conceals whatever lessons it  might hold for the next generation of engineers” (p.1498). When imagining this same quote from a library design perspective, I see a refreshing take on the power of failure to teach, and to take us out of our comfort zone and into something new. Failure to push limits prevents us from knowing how far we can go.

Design as decomposition

“Have no fear of perfection—you’ll never reach it”

Salvador Dali

To me, this is an interesting iteration of “everything is beta”. As Button and Sharrock assert (in describing software engineering), “capturing a requirement is like capturing a butterfly, once it’s pinned down it’s dead” (p.239). If we, again take this idea and remix it to be about library design, we arrive at the fact that the HL library designer’s work is never done. Once an new system or idea is in place, the decompostion begins, leading to its eventual decay and replacement. A participatory library is always in flux. As Weedman states, “fluidity is the greatest when something is partially working. “(p. 1503) This entropy (even in decomposition) holds space for change in a way that stasis does not. Weedman presents Schon’s idea of “conversations with materials”(p.1497), the idea that the designer creates and the design “talks back”, a state of perpetual conversation. This theory correlates well with the idea of participatory library as being in a constant feedback loop with patrons. She then relays a beautiful analogy (p.1497) of the blacksmith working with iron from a Keller and Keller essay; the design emerges over time through the conversation between the fire, metal, and the smith. Each reacts to the others and collaboratively shape the final product. However, in the HLL there is no “final product” the cycle begins again. I loved Michael Casey’s sentiment (from his zoom talk with the class) of allowing staff to mourn changes in the library. If design is decomposition, then there must also be death which then fertilizes new growth. After all in the HLL, there will always be a newer, better way.

References

Button, G. and Sharrock, W. (1994) Occasioned practice in the work of software engineers. In Requirements engineering: Social and technical issues, edited by Marina Jirotka and Joseph A. Gougen, 217-240.

Weedman, J. (2010). Design Science in the Information Sciences. In Bates, M. J., Maack, M. N., & Drake, M. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. New York: Taylor and Francis/Dekker Encyclopedias.