It's a fence. Not a large one. And it's blocking sprouting grass that used to be a path that connects a parking lot to one of our largest, busiest buildings. There was a folk theorem at play here. People created that path because they didn't like the alternative, because creating that path was more convenient. And my place of work's response was to plant some grass and throw up a fence. How's that for user experience? For dismissing local knowledge, metis?
I checked with our facilities department just to make sure, and they say this project is done. There's maybe fifteen feet of fence. It's not terribly attractive, but it's one way to solve a problem. It's not the way I would have done it. It's a cheap way to impose rationality. And it makes me wonder if I, as a librarian, am doing anything like this in the library. Or on the library website. Metaphors!
I hope this is not the first in a series of related posts, but it's also not the first time I've noticed the administration ignoring something that's potentially relevant, and it won't be the last.
Both the Director and the Provost are concerned that a patron would go into staff space for a chair, move it, and not replace it. I share this concern, but I have a different take. I think the patron just voted, just told us that our furniture, which does tend to move about at times (and is usually replaced), is not up to snuff. That someone would take a staff chair through three rooms, over 80 feet... that, to me, is a data point. It says something.