- open source software (& OS'!) - it's much easier nowadays to use open source & in case of products like wikis, the open source alternatives are at least as good (and often better) than enterprise-level/commercially-created software; interestingly, even the integrated library systems offered in open-source are largely on par with the commercial systems, and today they are much easier to deploy (not to mention, cheaper)
- capitalizing on user-contributed content (e.g., use of wikis) - knowledge-sharing, among staff AND patrons; another example, tagging, such as in Hennepin County Public Library (has patron reviews, booklists, add annotations) and in Ann Arbor, or University of Pennsylvania's "PennTags", which adds into the library catalog
- social software sustainably - abandoned blogs? that's a problem... so easy to start with social software, takes a commitment to maintain them; those that survived are those that added blog posting as part of their daily workflow; no longer putting tool before need (e.g., we need a wiki - why?) - they're planning & figuring out maintenance & migration/lifecycle issues
- going where our users are or letting them use our stuff when and where they want it!!! the majority of undergrads can't find library website on their university/college's site; where are people going instead of the library website? be there!!! make websites more usable, but also go where our users are - make it easy for them to use our content how, when, and where they want it! "it's good business" we need to put links to our digital collections in Wikipedia; instructional screencasts into YouTube; Instant Messaging for reference; make content portable through RSS; make our website obsolete!! funny, huh? but the point is to get the users to the content
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Meredith Farkas' Top Tech Trends from ALA
you can view and listen to her presentation in Flash format at http://s2.video.blip.tv/0330000525303/Librarianmer-MeredithsTopTechTrends705.swf. She lists the top tech trends she sees:
Monday, June 25, 2007
website usability - ambient findability at ALA
This David Lee King posting on the Ambient Findability session at ALA2007 (http://www.davidleeking.com/2007/06/25/ala2007-ambient-findability-librarians-libraries-and-the-internet-of-things/) - [btw, do a technorati search of ala2007 if you want to see a number of postings from multiple bloggers covering the conference - http://www.technorati.com/posts/tag/ALA2007 ] - is a wake up reminder (too bad I just keep hitting that snooze button) on where my priorities should be - and soon - test server cutover, etc., be damned. The presenter (Peter Morville) noted that you need to make your site "useful, desirable, accessible, credible, findable, usable & valuable". He suggested doing a "credibility audit" (this in place of a full-scale redesign)... "perceived credibility -- people trust nice-looking, well-designed sites"... ok, no more blogging for today, I've got work to do!
do libraries innovate?
This June 23rd blog posting - http://www.hiddenpeanuts.com/archives/2007/06/23/ala-2007-the-ultimate-debate-do-libraries-innovate/ - covers a session that was held at ALA this weekend - "The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?" It reminds us where our heads need to be at to get our profession and our organizations to innovate. Key points:
Some controversial but interesting points made as well:
- why does it seem like our profession is permeated by a "culture of victimization"?
- "We should get over the idea of requiring an MLS to be useful in a library. Experts of all backgrounds have a role to play."
Like the author of this blog posting, the saying "Change happens from those who show up" resonates with me...
I know that there are plenty of innovative library people roaming around - I've worked with them, met them at conferences, in person, read their blogs, emails, even their "tweets". The question is - do the organizations that they are in allow them to fulfill their innovative potential?
I don't agree that the problem is that librarianship is permeated by a culture of victimization. I think the problem is more one of power and politics... and how these things prevent the development of a culture of innovation in many large library organizations. (Hence why we see so much exciting work happening among our smaller public libraries out there - larger ones have the $$$, but not all of them have the innovative zeal they need to get out of their own way.) There are siloes and hierarchies that too often define what does and does not get done in the library. In all too many libraries, we don't see a meritocracy - a culture that rewards quality ideas - we instead see people who are rewarded for their loyalty to power structures that may or may not deserve that loyalty. I'm not saying that loyalty is bad - but loyalty should be to an organization's mission, better still, to the end-user, not to a specific power structure.
If anything, I'd say that a problem for librarianship is the "know-it-all" mentality that librarians - who are probably a bit too smart for their own good sometimes (yeah, I know, I'm one, too) - sometimes have. I started library school in 1998. It was common then to hear that any librarian could learn to be a techie, but not all techies could learn to be librarians. The arrogance of the statement tended to blow me away particularly back then - when I had no MLIS, but, via my job at that time, found myself repeatedly coaching library personnel who were held in the highest regard through computer tasks that were beyond basic! And that would be ok - I don't mean to discourage anyone - we all start from where we start from... but then we can't allow the profession to make the kinds of claims that techies are some low-level group... this failure to embrace techies, in fact, probably explains why so little development has originated from the library world. Over time, I do think that many librarians have come to respect technical gurus, but I also think that if a good portion of our profession hadn't let its aloofness toward that group hold it back in the 90s, we would've been able to do so much more - developing partnerships with the people who have transformed the internet to the web and the web to web2.0 and who are working on web3.0...
In fact, that's what we should all be turning to right now - we shouldn't be fighting among ourselves, debating issues that only hold us back. Instead, we should all agree that the next step for us is to play a vital role in the development of the semantic web. We all need to work together, some of us need to become XML-literate, all of us need to become more aware - and to get on board with the next steps towards the semantic web.
We need to work with one another, share knowledge, and progress more quickly than we have been progressing. Digital Archives? All of that content shouldn't be locked up inside - make it portable, participative, part of a larger conversation! And honestly - explode that OPAC - no vendor should dictate a lousy experience for your users - you know them best so rebuild your web-based tools around them!
Now you know what you have to do - and you know that it's too big a job to do entirely alone - so find some productive collaborators (this is key, because if your "collaborators" are pulling against you, you're better off going it alone)... so start doing it!
- Don’t be afraid to be a follower of a new idea.
- Don’t be afraid to fail.
- Be willing to re-evaluate the definition of success.
- "Having a tough hide is necessary..."
Some controversial but interesting points made as well:
- why does it seem like our profession is permeated by a "culture of victimization"?
- "We should get over the idea of requiring an MLS to be useful in a library. Experts of all backgrounds have a role to play."
Like the author of this blog posting, the saying "Change happens from those who show up" resonates with me...
I know that there are plenty of innovative library people roaming around - I've worked with them, met them at conferences, in person, read their blogs, emails, even their "tweets". The question is - do the organizations that they are in allow them to fulfill their innovative potential?
I don't agree that the problem is that librarianship is permeated by a culture of victimization. I think the problem is more one of power and politics... and how these things prevent the development of a culture of innovation in many large library organizations. (Hence why we see so much exciting work happening among our smaller public libraries out there - larger ones have the $$$, but not all of them have the innovative zeal they need to get out of their own way.) There are siloes and hierarchies that too often define what does and does not get done in the library. In all too many libraries, we don't see a meritocracy - a culture that rewards quality ideas - we instead see people who are rewarded for their loyalty to power structures that may or may not deserve that loyalty. I'm not saying that loyalty is bad - but loyalty should be to an organization's mission, better still, to the end-user, not to a specific power structure.
If anything, I'd say that a problem for librarianship is the "know-it-all" mentality that librarians - who are probably a bit too smart for their own good sometimes (yeah, I know, I'm one, too) - sometimes have. I started library school in 1998. It was common then to hear that any librarian could learn to be a techie, but not all techies could learn to be librarians. The arrogance of the statement tended to blow me away particularly back then - when I had no MLIS, but, via my job at that time, found myself repeatedly coaching library personnel who were held in the highest regard through computer tasks that were beyond basic! And that would be ok - I don't mean to discourage anyone - we all start from where we start from... but then we can't allow the profession to make the kinds of claims that techies are some low-level group... this failure to embrace techies, in fact, probably explains why so little development has originated from the library world. Over time, I do think that many librarians have come to respect technical gurus, but I also think that if a good portion of our profession hadn't let its aloofness toward that group hold it back in the 90s, we would've been able to do so much more - developing partnerships with the people who have transformed the internet to the web and the web to web2.0 and who are working on web3.0...
In fact, that's what we should all be turning to right now - we shouldn't be fighting among ourselves, debating issues that only hold us back. Instead, we should all agree that the next step for us is to play a vital role in the development of the semantic web. We all need to work together, some of us need to become XML-literate, all of us need to become more aware - and to get on board with the next steps towards the semantic web.
We need to work with one another, share knowledge, and progress more quickly than we have been progressing. Digital Archives? All of that content shouldn't be locked up inside - make it portable, participative, part of a larger conversation! And honestly - explode that OPAC - no vendor should dictate a lousy experience for your users - you know them best so rebuild your web-based tools around them!
Now you know what you have to do - and you know that it's too big a job to do entirely alone - so find some productive collaborators (this is key, because if your "collaborators" are pulling against you, you're better off going it alone)... so start doing it!
things to look for...
Take a look at the Bigwig Social Networking unconference, embedded in the larger 1.0 ALA conference - their wiki, with links to great presentations on topix like Twitter, for example - is at http://showcase.litablog.org/index.php/Main_Page
Friday, June 22, 2007
Cataloging needs to change...
oh my goodness, what a concept! I actually wouldn't have ventured onto this thin ice myself, having struggled mightily to get a B+ in my Cataloging course. But I was struck by how well thought out this blog entry from ALA Techsource (posted yesterday) was - see http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/.
The teaser:
"Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google."
-- Karen Coyle and Diane Hillman, "Resource Description and Access: Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century"
You may not think you care about AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules) or its successor, RDA (Resource Description and Access). That may seem like boring old-school stuff, not nearly as fun or glitzy as romping in Second Life or, as I am wont to do, posting the details of your afternoon snack on Twitter.
But the next time you complain about the limitations of library data—the gazillions of records we have created about the physical items in our libraries—and wonder why none of the cool new applications leverage the millions of library records shared worldwide, or why your expensive catalog can't integrate with a nifty new social software tool, or you wonder why there's no Google mashup to connect readers and books, consider this: to a large extent, it's because our data suck.
Not only that, it's our fault our data suck....
Now you just gotta read something like that, eh? And ponder it - deeply... but quickly. If the contention of this author is correct, librarians could be sidelined if they don't step up to the plate & redo their data... NOW! Catalogers, I'm talking to you...
The teaser:
"Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google."
-- Karen Coyle and Diane Hillman, "Resource Description and Access: Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century"
You may not think you care about AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules) or its successor, RDA (Resource Description and Access). That may seem like boring old-school stuff, not nearly as fun or glitzy as romping in Second Life or, as I am wont to do, posting the details of your afternoon snack on Twitter.
But the next time you complain about the limitations of library data—the gazillions of records we have created about the physical items in our libraries—and wonder why none of the cool new applications leverage the millions of library records shared worldwide, or why your expensive catalog can't integrate with a nifty new social software tool, or you wonder why there's no Google mashup to connect readers and books, consider this: to a large extent, it's because our data suck.
Not only that, it's our fault our data suck....
Now you just gotta read something like that, eh? And ponder it - deeply... but quickly. If the contention of this author is correct, librarians could be sidelined if they don't step up to the plate & redo their data... NOW! Catalogers, I'm talking to you...
That glazed look...
no, my mind is not wandering to donuts because it's a Friday afternoon. I'm thinking about how many times I've seen other librarians I'm training sort of "hit the wall". They get that glazed look in their eyes & they tell me something to the effect of - I'm completely overwhelmed or my brain's full.
I know how they feel.
I'm completely overwhelmed. Think about how fast things move. Here's a list of social software & tools I have to spend time on - just to keep up (not necessarily in this order). And that's not even the half of it - heck there's plenty I still don't know about!
So I ask you - am I slow? How does Bill Drew do it? He seems to constantly be doing something new with our Ning Library2.0 interface. Or Darlene Fichter? Or any of my fav bloggers - even my buddy, the Loose Cannon Librarian - how do they get it all done?
In the meantime, I TRY to post to Twitter, at least on occasion - see me there at http://twitter.com/sclapp
I know how they feel.
I'm completely overwhelmed. Think about how fast things move. Here's a list of social software & tools I have to spend time on - just to keep up (not necessarily in this order). And that's not even the half of it - heck there's plenty I still don't know about!
- Facebook - see my rudimentary profile
- Jaiku
- ProfileFly - see my profile
- Twitterlicious / Twitbin
- the updated Zoho Creator
So I ask you - am I slow? How does Bill Drew do it? He seems to constantly be doing something new with our Ning Library2.0 interface. Or Darlene Fichter? Or any of my fav bloggers - even my buddy, the Loose Cannon Librarian - how do they get it all done?
In the meantime, I TRY to post to Twitter, at least on occasion - see me there at http://twitter.com/sclapp
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)