Key words

Google; Apple; business; higher education; product design; design philosophy; design principles; library instruction; program design

What can we learn from the success of Google and Apple?

Google and Apple are so important and influential in everyday life now that it is rare to see their names absent from the news media on any given day. They are the best models of success, success in a universal sense. We may wonder what has made them so successful. Think further. Although we, academics, live in a different world, there must be something in Google and Apple worth our learning, things that we can borrow and utilize to make our library instruction programs better. One of the things we may consider is their philosophy, or to be more specific, their design philosophy. It is obvious that the success of both Google and Apple is a direct result of their product design.

After reviewing Google and Apple in previous chapters, we have learned about the companies, their philosophies, and product design principles. It should be noted that what we intend to borrow from Google and Apple and use for library instruction program design are philosophies, beliefs, ways of thinking, strategies, principles, and the like, rather than concrete technical terms, which can confine. While we do borrow and use some relevant concepts, it is by no means an ‘apples to apples’ approach. After all, we are in a different business.

Designs have goals and purposes. A product or a program is created to serve the mission of the company or the institution. Google’s mission is to organize information and make it accessible and useful; its product design makes web activities easy and fast. Apple’s mission is to make the best products in the world; its product design makes people’s lives more enjoyable. In both companies, product design fulfills its ultimate purpose and accomplishes their missions. In academia, the mission of a college or university is to educate people; the design purpose of its library’s instruction program is to serve students and faculty well; and its goal is to meet the educational needs of the learning community.

Designs have objects and an audience. A product or a program is designed for a target user group. Google designs its services for web users; Apple designs computers and electronics for consumers (who may or may not have computer backgrounds); and we design library instruction programs for students, faculty, and library users in general.

Designs are guided by philosophy and principles. A designer’s philosophy dictates the style of the product or the program, the presentation, the direction, and ultimately, the outcomes from the user. This is what we can learn and borrow from Google and Apple.

From business to education

‘One professor suggested that the library adopt a more “Google-style” approach to library databases, including the library catalog.’¹ This, reported in a 2006 focus group study of faculty, although just a suggestion by an individual professor, may represent a typical view of Google’s product design style. In addition, this comment naturally connects a commercial product (Google’s web service) to educational products (library databases). Why did the professor make such a suggestion? With no detailed explanation available from him or her, nor further analysis from the reporter, we may reasonably assume that the suggestion was a result of positive user experiences in Google searching. What makes Google search stand out from a crowd of Web search engines is that it offers, among many other plusses, simplicity (no distractions), superior algorithms (relevancy), speed (efficiency), and user friendliness (ease of use). Therefore, it is only natural that people would like to have ‘Google-style’ library databases. In a more recent research paper which focuses on the digital research practice of humanities scholars in the Netherlands, after having introduced the concept of Google’s ‘black boxed algorithms’ in digital scholarly practice and presented a detailed analysis of quantitative survey data, the authors conclude that all ‘can be condensed to three words: Just Google it.’² We see the connections between Google’s business activities and higher education.

If you ask an Apple user why he or she uses a Mac instead of a Windows PC, the answer is probably this: because it is user-friendly. Of course, there may be many other cool features that Apple users would mention, but user-friendliness is surely Apple’s selling point. The supremacy of Apple’s products has created a consumer culture among Apple fans. It features terms and concepts such as ‘queue chic’ and ‘social proof’, reflecting a psychological effect or a fashionable statement caused by a high level of user satisfaction,³ which is a result of Apple’s product design philosophy.

In an attempt to link practice in the business world and activities in the education field, I have made a table based upon common categories (excluding financial matters).

From consumer product design to academic program design

In implementing the task of designing library instruction programs, we are guided by established guidelines, and there are many in existence. Some are at high levels. They are authoritative and general. For example, ACRL’s guidelines. [Available online at: <http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesinstruction> .] Some are at local levels. They are customized for individual libraries’ needs. They are mission-specific and concrete. For example, a plan for Information Literacy programs [See Appendix 2: The Library Instruction Program: A Plan for Information Literacy at Oglethorpe University.] Some are quite theoretical; for example, Farmer’s Instructional Design for Librarians and Information Professionals. [See Bibliography.] Some are rather practical, such as Grassian and Kaplowitz’s Information Literacy Instruction. [See Bibliography.] Some are in manual style with samples, such as Roberts and Blandy’s Library Instruction for Librarians. [See Bibliography.] Some emphasize strategies and planning, such as Cox and Lindsay’s Information Literacy Instruction Handbook. [See Bibliography.] The list could go on and on and on. In short, there are numerous guidelines written for various purposes, or conveyed from different perspectives.

This brings us to the topic of this book: using a different approach in library instruction program design by learning from Google and Apple; using product design philosophies for educational program design in the hope of improving library instruction. Based upon the purpose of the programs, we may divide library instruction into two categories: the Google style and the Apple style. It is an idea which may be of interest to the instructional librarians.

First of all, we need to pick out the things, i.e. philosophies and principles, from Google and Apple that are applicable to library instruction, and then try to apply these philosophies and principles to our program design. It is, therefore, from product design to program design, so to speak. See Table 4.2 (p. 68).

Now, let’s discuss each philosophy or principle in application to library instruction.

User-friendliness. In an educational setting we may call it ‘learner-friendliness.’ There are many factors that may affect learner-friendliness in library instruction, and thus, impact learner experience. The following is a common list, which is by no means inclusive.

Simplicity. Less is more. Too much information is as nearly bad as no information. When we teach a thematic workshop, for example, we should stick with the theme in discussion, rather than trying to explain the whole picture of library science, because (1) time is limited, and (2) any topic other than the theme may cause distraction. In designing an LI web page, avoid using overly fancy layout, unnecessary plug-ins, and unusual background colors. Online learners will very likely not get the same results when accessing your website from different locations, via different computers or devices. In designing PowerPoint slides, avoid using too much text on a single slide, because it will crowd the screen, making it difficult to read. After all, PowerPoint slides are meant to be read by audiences from a distance.

Innovation. Use varied ways to present your lecture, to deliver your message, and to engage students. For example, make good use of images as a new way of communicating. A picture, a photograph, a table, a graph, a diagram, a chart, a drawing, a figure, an illustration, or the like, is sometimes more powerful and easier to understand than text.

Do what you are good at. Library instruction should be a team effort, which is easier to achieve if we utilize individual librarians’ academic backgrounds and specialties. Most academic libraries have a subject liaison program through which (1) the library keeps a close relationship with other departments in order to meet their academic needs, and (2) librarians with training in special fields can make use of their specialties in developing topical instruction programs. For example, a librarian with an MBA may be able to offer a detailed professional opinion and pertinent suggestions on the design of a business information literacy instruction program.

It can always be better. ‘Learning never ends’ is not only for students. It is for all of us, including instructors. Teaching methods in the digital age are changing constantly and advances in technology have enabled the creation of various teaching platforms for us to use. In addition to the traditional library classroom, we now have virtual tutorial, MOOC, and we are moving from static web pages to Web 2.0-enabled interactive Webinar sites. There are always better ways in teaching library instruction.

The infinity of information. Thanks to the Internet and technology, information sources are generated at a speed never achieved before. Both information availability and information accessibility have improved dramatically as a result of the digital revolution. Accordingly, library instruction nowadays involves more electronic resources than ever before. Content, user interfaces, built-in functionalities, and search features in electronic databases are changing so rapidly that an information resources survey has become a necessity when you are preparing any sort of library instruction. The open access movement, meanwhile, has ‘opened’ a new gateway to information sources, which can be or will be one of the commonest topics in library instruction.

Openness. An integrated information literacy component in a given course works well only when the librarian and the course professor communicate effectively. The librarian should familiarize him- or herself with the course objectives, contents, and expected outcomes, in order to design library instruction accordingly. Learning from library colleagues is beneficial, because, be it a subject-matter or a technical issue, one can never master everything. Even when all is within one’s reach, one may overlook important issues when preparing a lesson plan.

Bottom-up. Libraries are accustomed to collecting user data on a regular basis. There are various forms that we can use to collect user data; the survey and the questionnaire are among the most popular. There are different methods for special intentions: qualitative for general purposes and quantitative for statistical analysis. Library instruction data can be used for several purposes: participation in national statistical surveys, e.g. from the ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) and ALS (Academic Libraries Survey); and the library’s annual reports. But most importantly, the data can be used for assessing, revising, experimenting with, and, hopefully, improving library instruction programs. Data collected at local levels can be analyzed and put in use immediately. Data released by agencies, e.g. LibQUAL, can be used to analyze current status and trends, thus making our own strategic plan accordingly. From the data we know what the learner really wanted to learn, how helpful the current library instruction programs are and what kind of programs we should offer in the future to satisfy the learner’s needs

Aesthetics. Beauty can be presented in many forms, visual or audio, spoken or written, textual or graphical, artistic or musical. Some of Apple’s most successful products were designed by people with art or music backgrounds, and Steve Jobs was proud of that. In library instruction, PowerPoint slides can be artistically beautiful. Information literacy instructional web pages can be pleasant to view and navigate through. We can even apply musical concepts such as rhythm, tempo, pitch, and dynamics to speech to make our lectures more attractive. Steve Jobs made ‘boring’ computer stuff attractive and interesting; we could try to do the same in library instruction.

Think different. While we respect history, we should not be limited by the traditional way of teaching library instruction at either the practical or the philosophical level, because the times are changing and library science is evolving. Thinking outside the box creates new programs (more useful and current) for the learners and new opportunities (more competitive positions and leadership) for the library.

Top-down. When designing a library instruction program, we should spend time on thinking about what the learner must know in order to be a good learner and thus, a successful student. Learners do not know exactly what they need to learn in the science of library. This is particularly true for first-year college students, who may not have had adequate training in high school and thus may be deficient in information literacy. Numerous studies and reports on this issue have been published. Therefore, it is important to guide the learner to learn what they need to learn instead of, or in addition to, what they want to learn.

It should be remembered that although Google and Apple each follow their own philosophies and use different design principles, there are also areas of overlap and common ground—some principles are applied in both companies. In addition, when designing a library instruction program it is possible to use either the Google approach or the Apple approach, depending on the subject of the program, the content of the instruction, and the characteristics of the learners. For example, a library orientation may use either Google style or Apple style, depending on the situation: