Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005). The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright.
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
Many articles that protest copyright violation do so on behalf of the publishing companies and authors who are shortchanged by the free sharing of their creative work. This article seemed more concerned with the end user being shortchanged because Google's Library (if it was created) would not revolutionize research as the hype promised. The free, web-accessible, aesthetic digital library would be user-friendly by most measures. However, Google's PageRank algorithm is not up to the challenge of classifying and interconnecting texts beyond "keywords in passages." This system of organizing the internet works better than any other algorithm so far, but the Google Library Project implies that their digital archive can be used in place of conventional libraries.
The author was not completely supporting the current copyright laws or the courts' rigid enforcement, as in the lawsuits regarding Google's caching websites, or mp3.com's storing audio files, neither of which affected market value in anyway. Google has argued in favor of its Library Project according to the four factors checklist, that it excerpts are "transformative" not "derivative," and that the excerpts are small enough parts of the whole. The author doesn't clearly take a side, but argues that the current copyright laws are too vague and too difficult to apply to current digital controversies.
A takeaway message is that even if Google's legal and ethical arguments triumph, they may not be the best organization to create a universal digital library. They are branded as the good guy who helps the public according to their own needs and wishes. However, libraries should be playing a role (beyond allowing books to be copied) in such a large revolutionary endeavor.
Discussion question: If you were a library director, would you allow Google to scan your collection for its digital Library Project? If you were a publisher, would you allow Google's LP to feature excerpts from your books for marketing purposes?
Brian Gambles (2010). "Rewriting the Book: On the Move in the Library of Birmingham." Ariadne Issue 64: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue64/gambles/
I loved the optimism and innovation in this article. The word "cloud" to describe the new norm of storage is very fitting for a technology that is so lightweight and accessible from anywhere. The article did a good job highlighting the potential of mobile apps to provide information in new integrated ways, such as the walking tours of museums or historic city centers, as well as mobile apps designed for the specific library. Having a GPS/QR system to guide a user around the physical shelves would be useful. I remember my college library had a link you could post to Facebook of your exact location so study buddies could find you. If a similar system was incorporated onto mobile apps, it would be even smoother and easier to use.
A takeway message as stated by the author: "user experience is everything."
Discussion question: LoB also understands the importance of drawing students and tourists into the physical space; then having lounge space and well-designed collections to pique their curiosity; then expecting these impressed visitors will give good reviews or share specific documents online. What features would draw you into a library?
Zimerman, M. (2010). Technology and privacy erosion in United States Libraries: A personal viewpoint. New Library World. 11(1) 7-15.
The author claimed the difference between a totalitarian state and a free society it the control people have over disclosing their personal information. I'm not sure that the government demanding and possessing information qualifies the system as problematic and restrictive; what about the Census and the IRS? However in the last decade, the digitization of all types of records as well as increased concerns of terrorism, have changed the norms of individual privacy.
A takeaway message is that libraries should make their stance on user privacy clear to both the users and the government investigators. A policy that requires a court order to reveal records seems reasonable.
Discussion question: Now that expontentially more user information can be efficiently stored, should libraries take advantage of this available data to improve marketing, budgeting, and customization, as many businesses do? Or should the digital archives be periodically wiped to prevent abuse of the system?
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
11/2 readings
Liu, Shu (2008). Engaging users: The future of academic library we sites. College & Research Libraries, 69(1), 6-27.
I was intrigued by O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0 as "the Internet as a platform." The Internet can no longer be considered an application itself, but, like Windows or Mac, the Internet is a platform to support other applications. Web 2.0 is discussed frequently in LIS courses, but this is the best definition I've encountered yet. Web 2.0 should support content sharing and "rich user experience," since users and information are no longer two separate entities. The examples of Britannica evolving to Wikipedia and those 1990s style homepages evolving to blogs reinforced this definition.
Liu seemed to be criticizing library websites for having one design for all their pages, although the intro to design articles from last week believed consistent design was a crucial design principle. Liu also found that library websites have too much text and too little collaboration, which are fair points. It was also good to see statistics (even older ones) on how many libraries had adopted a particular technology. Present and future trends for library catalogs and websites are often mentioned, but it can be hard to tell just how widespread technologies are. I thought that 4% was surprisingly low for myLibrary style pages (though there may be more now), and was also surprised that "almost every" library had virtualchat. Maybe the service is not always the easiest to spot on a library homepage.
A takeaway message is that libraries shouldn't adopt new technologies just to stay trendy and relevant. While it is important to keep users interested and visiting the library websites, the technology exists to serve the users need, not just so the library can say they have it.
Discussion question: Is it good practice for a library website to link to have a Google Scholar search box, as 10 libraries did? It is handy that Google Scholar redirects to a library database, but why would a library database send a user to Google?
Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(3), 156-166.
I was very curious to learn what usability experts did for a library. I wonder how someone qualifies for that profession? At first, I imagined that they would test the system themselves and catch most of the errors because they were experts. But the approach involved the expert checklist or heuristic, as well as interviews and exercises with users that were run by the usability expert.
The authors mentioned CMS, describing this type of system as good for repeated updates and for multiple authorized administrators rather than just one webmaster.
One takeaway message is that this article was written in 2005 before Web 2.0 was a huge buzzword, but their goals of updating were similar to the goals of Web 2.0: allow users to interact with the homepage, with dropdown menu and a search box. Looking back, people may divide the development of the Web into eras, but it's important to remember that the general concerns of users overlap these eras.
Discussion question: I was intrigued by the conclusion, where users were tested again 1.5 years after the adoption of the new system. The search box was being used more frequently but also misunderstood; the search was for the library website, while some users thought it might be for the catalog or for the Web. Have you ever encountered an unclear searchbox like this?
Beth Thomsett-Scott. (2005). Yeah, I found it! Performing web site usability testing to ensure that off-campus students can find the information they need. Journal of Library Administration, 41(3), 471-483.
This usability testing relied fully on users doing common library website tasks, with a moderator/observer. The sessions lasted up to two hours, and the student users were given candy at the end to leave with a positive attitude towards the library. The final questionnaire was described as relaxing, but I wonder how effective this style of testing is. Students might have insufficient motivation to try their hardest at all tasks, and this could effect speed measurements. Was there class credit or other reimbursement offered?
Perhaps some students appreciated the benefits of becoming more familiar with library website features, and this style of usability testing has been proven effective. However, it is a real concern that testing may bother the very users it is trying to assist.
A takeaway message is the increasing importance of web interfaces, as digital libraries and offsite access become more common and remove the human interaction.
Discussion question: How effective is a cognitive walkthrough approach? Would you recommend this usability test strategy to libraries with budget issues?
I was intrigued by O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0 as "the Internet as a platform." The Internet can no longer be considered an application itself, but, like Windows or Mac, the Internet is a platform to support other applications. Web 2.0 is discussed frequently in LIS courses, but this is the best definition I've encountered yet. Web 2.0 should support content sharing and "rich user experience," since users and information are no longer two separate entities. The examples of Britannica evolving to Wikipedia and those 1990s style homepages evolving to blogs reinforced this definition.
Liu seemed to be criticizing library websites for having one design for all their pages, although the intro to design articles from last week believed consistent design was a crucial design principle. Liu also found that library websites have too much text and too little collaboration, which are fair points. It was also good to see statistics (even older ones) on how many libraries had adopted a particular technology. Present and future trends for library catalogs and websites are often mentioned, but it can be hard to tell just how widespread technologies are. I thought that 4% was surprisingly low for myLibrary style pages (though there may be more now), and was also surprised that "almost every" library had virtualchat. Maybe the service is not always the easiest to spot on a library homepage.
A takeaway message is that libraries shouldn't adopt new technologies just to stay trendy and relevant. While it is important to keep users interested and visiting the library websites, the technology exists to serve the users need, not just so the library can say they have it.
Discussion question: Is it good practice for a library website to link to have a Google Scholar search box, as 10 libraries did? It is handy that Google Scholar redirects to a library database, but why would a library database send a user to Google?
Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(3), 156-166.
I was very curious to learn what usability experts did for a library. I wonder how someone qualifies for that profession? At first, I imagined that they would test the system themselves and catch most of the errors because they were experts. But the approach involved the expert checklist or heuristic, as well as interviews and exercises with users that were run by the usability expert.
The authors mentioned CMS, describing this type of system as good for repeated updates and for multiple authorized administrators rather than just one webmaster.
One takeaway message is that this article was written in 2005 before Web 2.0 was a huge buzzword, but their goals of updating were similar to the goals of Web 2.0: allow users to interact with the homepage, with dropdown menu and a search box. Looking back, people may divide the development of the Web into eras, but it's important to remember that the general concerns of users overlap these eras.
Discussion question: I was intrigued by the conclusion, where users were tested again 1.5 years after the adoption of the new system. The search box was being used more frequently but also misunderstood; the search was for the library website, while some users thought it might be for the catalog or for the Web. Have you ever encountered an unclear searchbox like this?
Beth Thomsett-Scott. (2005). Yeah, I found it! Performing web site usability testing to ensure that off-campus students can find the information they need. Journal of Library Administration, 41(3), 471-483.
This usability testing relied fully on users doing common library website tasks, with a moderator/observer. The sessions lasted up to two hours, and the student users were given candy at the end to leave with a positive attitude towards the library. The final questionnaire was described as relaxing, but I wonder how effective this style of testing is. Students might have insufficient motivation to try their hardest at all tasks, and this could effect speed measurements. Was there class credit or other reimbursement offered?
Perhaps some students appreciated the benefits of becoming more familiar with library website features, and this style of usability testing has been proven effective. However, it is a real concern that testing may bother the very users it is trying to assist.
A takeaway message is the increasing importance of web interfaces, as digital libraries and offsite access become more common and remove the human interaction.
Discussion question: How effective is a cognitive walkthrough approach? Would you recommend this usability test strategy to libraries with budget issues?
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
10/12 readings
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/internet-infrastructure.htm/printable
This article was incredible! Such a good introduction to basic Internet terminology, easy to read but not too dumbed down. Many terms that I was familiar with were properly defined: the difference between a host and a client, routers prevent communication channels from clogging, domains are as broad as .com, and "cached" basically means "saved." I hadn't known about NAPs, DNS servers, or backbones before, even though I've used them daily for years.
It is an amazingly complicated process for how fast it runs. After the article's explanation of these terms and the flow of information between them, some of the standard error messages make more sense, rather than just appearing from the "black box" of the internet.
I'm still not sure I fully understand who sets up all this web equipment. Some of it is set up by ISPs or by businesses expanding the range of their own networks. I was especially intrigued by the Internet Society, who oversees universal policies and protocols. Who is in this group, and how is membership decided?
A takeaway message was stated in the Backbone section: "The entire Internet is a gigantic, sprawling agreement between companies to intercommunicate freely."
Discussion question: Is the process of a DNS searching for an IP address similar to other types of search engines? How is the search process similar or different?
Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5173.
http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr/publications/gavrilis/Enhancing%20Library%20Services%20with%20Web%202.0%20functionalities-rev5-chr.pdf
Web 2.0's focus on the user also makes it inherently collaborative. The phrase Library 2.0 was also used in this article. Just as library's physical spaces are changing to accomodate more information commons or knowledge cafes, the OPAC of the future will be partly searching and partly knowledge sharing. This transition has already begun, as some OPACs now list standard bibliographic information alongside ratings, reviews, comments or tags from users.
In some ways, this reminds me of movie review websites, where you can read what the professional critics have to say as well as what the average audience-goer thought. The difference is that both professional and amateur critics are evaluating the quality of the movie in a similarly displayed format. Cataloguers do not evaluate the quality of their materials; presumably if a record is in the OPAC, then the librarians approved of the source's quality. Giving librarians and users separate collaborative roles for record creation is a good idea. OPACIAL's recommendations for tags will move the user-added information in the direction of controlled vocab, without losing the flexibility intended by OPAC 2.0.
A takeaway message is that users find the new OPAC is satisfying and useful because of these added features. The new attitude expressed by updated OPACs, even more than the new abilities, may help Library 2.0 rebrand itself for the 21st century.
Discussion question: The article states that 28% of Internet users tag, usually for their own devices. Is it a problem that a minority of Internet users create these tag clouds? Will tags from late-comers will have less power?
Paul Anderson (2007). All That Glitters Is Not Gold–Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 39, No. 4, 195-198.
This article was a good balance to the other two, and to much of the readings assigned for the LIS intro courses. Most information professionals feel that new ways to share information, and new speedy trendy technologies are inherently good and should be adopted. While being too old-fashioned is an arguably worse problem for libraries' survival, it was good that the author defined Web 2.0 and looked at some of it's obstacles rather than just rejoice in the vague marvel of it all.
His "long" definition of Web 2.0 was much more clear than "it has wikis and social networks," focusing on the maturation of software and network design that allows information to be shared on such an epic scale. The development of Web 2.0 is due to more than just a sudden surge of interested users; computer engineers helped design a system that allowed this enthusiasm to thrive.
A takeaway message is that it is important to understand and define terms thoroughly. In the introduction, Anderson mentions that comparing OPAC and Amazon's ability to search their records is relevant to Web 2.0 technology, while comparing the shipping speed of ILL and Amazon is not. If Web 2.0 is fuzzily defined as "something websites do to be more efficient," confusion like this is certainly possible.
Discussion question: Anderson says that one potential problem of Web 2.0 is that software will be in "perpetual beta." Do you think this will actually happen? If software exists in perpetual beta, does the definition of beta change?
This article was incredible! Such a good introduction to basic Internet terminology, easy to read but not too dumbed down. Many terms that I was familiar with were properly defined: the difference between a host and a client, routers prevent communication channels from clogging, domains are as broad as .com, and "cached" basically means "saved." I hadn't known about NAPs, DNS servers, or backbones before, even though I've used them daily for years.
It is an amazingly complicated process for how fast it runs. After the article's explanation of these terms and the flow of information between them, some of the standard error messages make more sense, rather than just appearing from the "black box" of the internet.
I'm still not sure I fully understand who sets up all this web equipment. Some of it is set up by ISPs or by businesses expanding the range of their own networks. I was especially intrigued by the Internet Society, who oversees universal policies and protocols. Who is in this group, and how is membership decided?
A takeaway message was stated in the Backbone section: "The entire Internet is a gigantic, sprawling agreement between companies to intercommunicate freely."
Discussion question: Is the process of a DNS searching for an IP address similar to other types of search engines? How is the search process similar or different?
Gavrilis, D., Kakali, C., and Papatheodorou, C. (2008). Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5173.
http://www.wcl.ece.upatras.gr/publications/gavrilis/Enhancing%20Library%20Services%20with%20Web%202.0%20functionalities-rev5-chr.pdf
Web 2.0's focus on the user also makes it inherently collaborative. The phrase Library 2.0 was also used in this article. Just as library's physical spaces are changing to accomodate more information commons or knowledge cafes, the OPAC of the future will be partly searching and partly knowledge sharing. This transition has already begun, as some OPACs now list standard bibliographic information alongside ratings, reviews, comments or tags from users.
In some ways, this reminds me of movie review websites, where you can read what the professional critics have to say as well as what the average audience-goer thought. The difference is that both professional and amateur critics are evaluating the quality of the movie in a similarly displayed format. Cataloguers do not evaluate the quality of their materials; presumably if a record is in the OPAC, then the librarians approved of the source's quality. Giving librarians and users separate collaborative roles for record creation is a good idea. OPACIAL's recommendations for tags will move the user-added information in the direction of controlled vocab, without losing the flexibility intended by OPAC 2.0.
A takeaway message is that users find the new OPAC is satisfying and useful because of these added features. The new attitude expressed by updated OPACs, even more than the new abilities, may help Library 2.0 rebrand itself for the 21st century.
Discussion question: The article states that 28% of Internet users tag, usually for their own devices. Is it a problem that a minority of Internet users create these tag clouds? Will tags from late-comers will have less power?
Paul Anderson (2007). All That Glitters Is Not Gold–Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 39, No. 4, 195-198.
This article was a good balance to the other two, and to much of the readings assigned for the LIS intro courses. Most information professionals feel that new ways to share information, and new speedy trendy technologies are inherently good and should be adopted. While being too old-fashioned is an arguably worse problem for libraries' survival, it was good that the author defined Web 2.0 and looked at some of it's obstacles rather than just rejoice in the vague marvel of it all.
His "long" definition of Web 2.0 was much more clear than "it has wikis and social networks," focusing on the maturation of software and network design that allows information to be shared on such an epic scale. The development of Web 2.0 is due to more than just a sudden surge of interested users; computer engineers helped design a system that allowed this enthusiasm to thrive.
A takeaway message is that it is important to understand and define terms thoroughly. In the introduction, Anderson mentions that comparing OPAC and Amazon's ability to search their records is relevant to Web 2.0 technology, while comparing the shipping speed of ILL and Amazon is not. If Web 2.0 is fuzzily defined as "something websites do to be more efficient," confusion like this is certainly possible.
Discussion question: Anderson says that one potential problem of Web 2.0 is that software will be in "perpetual beta." Do you think this will actually happen? If software exists in perpetual beta, does the definition of beta change?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
9/28 readings
Phillip C. Bantin (2002). Records management in a digitial world. EDUCAUSE, Research Bulletin, 2002(16).
This article described three common systems for managing electronic records: OLTP, DSS, and EDMS. Each of these systems was analyzed in terms of the five goals of e-record management: capturing records, keeping records immutable and secure, keeping records usable, automating retention or destruction, and preserving records. According to the authors, OLTPs, DSSs, and EDMS, all fall short of meeting these five goals, although the systems do have strengths.
These five goals would also apply to physical record management, but with e-records, there are new issues. Many more people have the ability to view, edit, and combine records, so security and organization of different versions within the system becomes an issue. Additionally, hardware and software deterioration and incompatibility requires a different preservation strategy than paper records. Records also come in new forms, such as e-mail or multimedia.
A takeaway message is stated by the authors early on: records are assets of a corporation, and the glue of an enterprise. Effective record management is more than just a handy feature of technology; it should be the essential focus of a company's technology.
Discussion question: I had trouble thinking of examples of the different systems. Would a database or e-library be considered an EDMS? Also, if these five goals are recognized, why have systems not updated to meet them? Are there technological or storage space or cost barriers to this goal?
Sherry Owen (2006). Electronic Document Management Systems: A Case Study. Arkansas Libraries, 63(1). 22-25.
This article described one company's implementation of am EDMS. The company had many of the same concerns outlined in the Bantin article, and the model they followed for selecting a system was similar to the SDLC waterfall discussed in past week's reading. Focusing on one company highlighted the realities of adopting an EDMS system: choosing a vendor, selling the idea to senior management, representatives from IT and user departments working together.
A takeaway message was how different corporate needs are from academic libraries. I was surprised that 40 vendors were contacted; I thought that sounded like a lot of options. The article also discussed the typical flow of business records usage: frequent at first and then sharply declining. I also was unaware of corporation's need for a system to automate legal compliance.
Discussion question: The author mentioned that the corporation still keeps track of paper records alongside electronic records. What should be the fate of paper records systems? Should they be standardized as a backup system? Completely discontinued to save money and time? Or should paper be gradually phased out, allowing individuals or departments to keep records, but not managing the process?
Gary P. Johnston, David V. Bowen, (2005) "The benefits of electronic records management systems: a general view of published and some unpublished cases." Records Management Journal, 15(3), 131-140.
This article began by describing the difference between documents and records, and also the difference between EDMSs and ERMSs (although some systems can function as both). Another crucial difference discussion in the introduction is between ERMSs and other types of information systems: the former stores different versions of a record as it is changed over time, while the latter values storing only the most recent version for efficiency and accuracy.
Benefits to users, organizations, and society were outlined convincingly. One surprising benefits is that ERMSs should be able to prevent fraud. This article also outlined some specific cost comparisons for ERMS versus paper storage. A takeaway message is that e-storage is not necessarily cheaper. The authors suggest that 3 uses should be the benchmark: more than this, store it electronicly, but if the record is rarely needed, keeping it as paper should be cheaper.
Discussion question: The authors state that ERMSs can manage paper records, but not databases. How can this be?
This article described three common systems for managing electronic records: OLTP, DSS, and EDMS. Each of these systems was analyzed in terms of the five goals of e-record management: capturing records, keeping records immutable and secure, keeping records usable, automating retention or destruction, and preserving records. According to the authors, OLTPs, DSSs, and EDMS, all fall short of meeting these five goals, although the systems do have strengths.
These five goals would also apply to physical record management, but with e-records, there are new issues. Many more people have the ability to view, edit, and combine records, so security and organization of different versions within the system becomes an issue. Additionally, hardware and software deterioration and incompatibility requires a different preservation strategy than paper records. Records also come in new forms, such as e-mail or multimedia.
A takeaway message is stated by the authors early on: records are assets of a corporation, and the glue of an enterprise. Effective record management is more than just a handy feature of technology; it should be the essential focus of a company's technology.
Discussion question: I had trouble thinking of examples of the different systems. Would a database or e-library be considered an EDMS? Also, if these five goals are recognized, why have systems not updated to meet them? Are there technological or storage space or cost barriers to this goal?
Sherry Owen (2006). Electronic Document Management Systems: A Case Study. Arkansas Libraries, 63(1). 22-25.
This article described one company's implementation of am EDMS. The company had many of the same concerns outlined in the Bantin article, and the model they followed for selecting a system was similar to the SDLC waterfall discussed in past week's reading. Focusing on one company highlighted the realities of adopting an EDMS system: choosing a vendor, selling the idea to senior management, representatives from IT and user departments working together.
A takeaway message was how different corporate needs are from academic libraries. I was surprised that 40 vendors were contacted; I thought that sounded like a lot of options. The article also discussed the typical flow of business records usage: frequent at first and then sharply declining. I also was unaware of corporation's need for a system to automate legal compliance.
Discussion question: The author mentioned that the corporation still keeps track of paper records alongside electronic records. What should be the fate of paper records systems? Should they be standardized as a backup system? Completely discontinued to save money and time? Or should paper be gradually phased out, allowing individuals or departments to keep records, but not managing the process?
Gary P. Johnston, David V. Bowen, (2005) "The benefits of electronic records management systems: a general view of published and some unpublished cases." Records Management Journal, 15(3), 131-140.
This article began by describing the difference between documents and records, and also the difference between EDMSs and ERMSs (although some systems can function as both). Another crucial difference discussion in the introduction is between ERMSs and other types of information systems: the former stores different versions of a record as it is changed over time, while the latter values storing only the most recent version for efficiency and accuracy.
Benefits to users, organizations, and society were outlined convincingly. One surprising benefits is that ERMSs should be able to prevent fraud. This article also outlined some specific cost comparisons for ERMS versus paper storage. A takeaway message is that e-storage is not necessarily cheaper. The authors suggest that 3 uses should be the benchmark: more than this, store it electronicly, but if the record is rarely needed, keeping it as paper should be cheaper.
Discussion question: The authors state that ERMSs can manage paper records, but not databases. How can this be?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
9/14 readings
C. N. Mooers (1960). "Mooers' Law or, Why Some Retrieval Systems Are Used and Others Are Not." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 23 (1), 1996. (via ProQuest database).
Mooers' Law had actually come up in discussion in 557 last week, so it was great to read the original article that has influenced all facets of library & information science. Mooers' Law is simple and seems obvious once it's been pointed out, but is crucial for information professionals to keep in mind. Most people who choose library science as a career do so because they love information and see the benefits it brings our society, so it is hard for us to understand the reverse point of view.
Before reading this article, I had trouble thinking of examples of how information could be troublesome, which goes to show how much I need to keep Mooers' Law in mind. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common truism, but this usually applies to people who are unaware of harsh facts of life, or of the dark pasts of people around them. This sort of information is unlikely to be encountered in a library search. I thought that a person researching information on a disorder they've been diagnosed with could be troublesome or painful, but surely remaining ignorant would be more trouble or pain for them ultimately.
The example given of workplaces where speed is valued over accuracy is a more realistic setting for Mooers' Law to occur. One takeaway message is that librarians need to understand the community they serve; is access to information too difficult or is there a larger cultural problem to be overcome?
Discussion question: Do you think companies are less likely to regard information as troublesome and painful today than in the 1960s?
M. Cutts (2005). "How Does Google Collect and Rank Results?" Google's Newsletter for Librarians.
Tito Sierra, Joseph Ryan, and Markus Wust (2007). Beyond OPAC 2.0: Library Catalog as Versatile Discovery Platform. Code4lib.
As Web 2.0 features, such as rss feeds, user feedback, and search corrections, become more commonplace, some technology experts are trying to predict what's coming next. One emerging trend is mobile technology, and I was happily surprised to see that libraries were keeping up with technology, to the point that a library catalog was designed for cell phones 4 years ago. This article did a good job summarizing some of the issues with Mobile catalogs: smaller displays, bandwidth restrictions, compatibility with various platforms.
This article also challenged some of my basic assumptions about library systems, suggesting that libraries should have two different systems for searching, one for known items and another for browsing. This idea had never crossed my mind; because libraries have always had one catalog, I thought there was likely a reason for it. Perhaps it would be confusing for some patrons to learn two different search systems which need to be used at different times, but if the catalogs were designed with usability, it should be possible.
One takeaway message was the difference between platforms and applications; that is, platforms are adaptable to specific needs where applications need to stay as the designers release them. As technology changes at increasing speeds, platforms will become more cost-effective and necessary.
Discussion question: What is an issue you often encounter with library catalogs you would like to see addressed?
Mooers' Law had actually come up in discussion in 557 last week, so it was great to read the original article that has influenced all facets of library & information science. Mooers' Law is simple and seems obvious once it's been pointed out, but is crucial for information professionals to keep in mind. Most people who choose library science as a career do so because they love information and see the benefits it brings our society, so it is hard for us to understand the reverse point of view.
Before reading this article, I had trouble thinking of examples of how information could be troublesome, which goes to show how much I need to keep Mooers' Law in mind. "Ignorance is bliss" is a common truism, but this usually applies to people who are unaware of harsh facts of life, or of the dark pasts of people around them. This sort of information is unlikely to be encountered in a library search. I thought that a person researching information on a disorder they've been diagnosed with could be troublesome or painful, but surely remaining ignorant would be more trouble or pain for them ultimately.
The example given of workplaces where speed is valued over accuracy is a more realistic setting for Mooers' Law to occur. One takeaway message is that librarians need to understand the community they serve; is access to information too difficult or is there a larger cultural problem to be overcome?
Discussion question: Do you think companies are less likely to regard information as troublesome and painful today than in the 1960s?
M. Cutts (2005). "How Does Google Collect and Rank Results?" Google's Newsletter for Librarians.
This article was fascinating! It was described at a beginner's level, including suggested student activities, but it still assumed intelligence on the reader's part. I've read articles in newspapers and magazines about why and how Google is so good as what it does, but it was great to hear Google's own take on it's methodology.
Certainly a lot has changed since 2005: the proliferation of Google mail, reader, documents, + and other similar features, and the autocomplete ability of the search bar. I was surprised that the user's preference didn't factor into PageRank, perhaps that has also been introduced more recently than 2005. I wish I remembered more clearly if different results were returned 6 years ago.
One take away message is that Google uses some similar methods to searchable databases: giving higher rank to articles containing the search term in higher frequency or in the title. However, the page rank index and the incredible speed are only possible because of the tremendous computer power owned by Google (at least to the best of my understanding.)
Discussion question: Did you know that Google had a newsletter for librarians? Does that mean they see us as allies in the information age? Did librarians ask Google so many questions they decided to answer us en masse?
Tito Sierra, Joseph Ryan, and Markus Wust (2007). Beyond OPAC 2.0: Library Catalog as Versatile Discovery Platform. Code4lib.
As Web 2.0 features, such as rss feeds, user feedback, and search corrections, become more commonplace, some technology experts are trying to predict what's coming next. One emerging trend is mobile technology, and I was happily surprised to see that libraries were keeping up with technology, to the point that a library catalog was designed for cell phones 4 years ago. This article did a good job summarizing some of the issues with Mobile catalogs: smaller displays, bandwidth restrictions, compatibility with various platforms.
This article also challenged some of my basic assumptions about library systems, suggesting that libraries should have two different systems for searching, one for known items and another for browsing. This idea had never crossed my mind; because libraries have always had one catalog, I thought there was likely a reason for it. Perhaps it would be confusing for some patrons to learn two different search systems which need to be used at different times, but if the catalogs were designed with usability, it should be possible.
One takeaway message was the difference between platforms and applications; that is, platforms are adaptable to specific needs where applications need to stay as the designers release them. As technology changes at increasing speeds, platforms will become more cost-effective and necessary.
Discussion question: What is an issue you often encounter with library catalogs you would like to see addressed?
Sunday, September 04, 2011
8/31 readings
Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Ch 1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. In Library Information Systems, pp. 3-12.
This article provided a useful history of Library Information Systems over the decades. The general trend described was mechanization which led to automation and finally led to integration. Mechanization and automation benefitted patrons by increasing the efficiency of cataloguing, locating, and circulating materials in the library.
Integration in libraries benefits patrons to a far greater degree; the Internet, ILL, and digital collections not only improve efficiency for local documents but allow patrons access to a far greater collection of materials around the globe than was previously possible.
One take away message is that the Internet can be considered not a single revolutionary technology but a collection of multiple applications. In addition to libraries integrating their documents with those from other institutions, different web applications must also be integrated, such as eBooks, online databases, and a library's own searchable catalogue.
Discussion question: What position should libraries take when embracing new technology? Bleeding edge, leading edge, in the wedge, trailing edge? Do different kinds of libraries require different approaches to technology?
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
The previous article focused on the history of technology in libraries, and this article focuses on the present trends, and what is likely to develop in the near future. The author acknowledges that predicting the future is difficult, especially the further into the future you go. He recommends looking to the past for patterns. He also encourages an open-minded attitude towards new technology by embracing the bothersome and dismantling our strongest conclusions.
A good example of a bothersome technology is the eBook and eJournal, which has already changed the basic role of bookstores, publishers, newspapers, and libraries. Those institutions which dismiss the eBook as a bothersome invention are sure to become obsolete, while those which adapt to include the new technology will continue, albeit in altered forms. Barnes & Noble developed their own brand of eReader; Borders did not.
The author predicts that librarians' role will shift away from collection management, as information becomes more easily accessible, and towards a service role, maintaining both online and physical spaces that allow patrons to collaborate.
One take away message is Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, which predicts that technology change happens at an increasingly fast rate. He calculated that their will be more technological change in the next 100 years than in the previous 2000. Staying relevant will be more challenging, and the digital divide is also expected to increase. Mobile-based technology and applications have exploded in the past couple years, so those who primarily use a laptop are already behind, not to mention those with limited access to older computers.
Discussion question: What new technologies do you think will be developed in the next 5 years? The next 20 years? How will libraries be able to utilize them?
This article provided a useful history of Library Information Systems over the decades. The general trend described was mechanization which led to automation and finally led to integration. Mechanization and automation benefitted patrons by increasing the efficiency of cataloguing, locating, and circulating materials in the library.
Integration in libraries benefits patrons to a far greater degree; the Internet, ILL, and digital collections not only improve efficiency for local documents but allow patrons access to a far greater collection of materials around the globe than was previously possible.
One take away message is that the Internet can be considered not a single revolutionary technology but a collection of multiple applications. In addition to libraries integrating their documents with those from other institutions, different web applications must also be integrated, such as eBooks, online databases, and a library's own searchable catalogue.
Discussion question: What position should libraries take when embracing new technology? Bleeding edge, leading edge, in the wedge, trailing edge? Do different kinds of libraries require different approaches to technology?
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
The previous article focused on the history of technology in libraries, and this article focuses on the present trends, and what is likely to develop in the near future. The author acknowledges that predicting the future is difficult, especially the further into the future you go. He recommends looking to the past for patterns. He also encourages an open-minded attitude towards new technology by embracing the bothersome and dismantling our strongest conclusions.
A good example of a bothersome technology is the eBook and eJournal, which has already changed the basic role of bookstores, publishers, newspapers, and libraries. Those institutions which dismiss the eBook as a bothersome invention are sure to become obsolete, while those which adapt to include the new technology will continue, albeit in altered forms. Barnes & Noble developed their own brand of eReader; Borders did not.
The author predicts that librarians' role will shift away from collection management, as information becomes more easily accessible, and towards a service role, maintaining both online and physical spaces that allow patrons to collaborate.
One take away message is Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, which predicts that technology change happens at an increasingly fast rate. He calculated that their will be more technological change in the next 100 years than in the previous 2000. Staying relevant will be more challenging, and the digital divide is also expected to increase. Mobile-based technology and applications have exploded in the past couple years, so those who primarily use a laptop are already behind, not to mention those with limited access to older computers.
Discussion question: What new technologies do you think will be developed in the next 5 years? The next 20 years? How will libraries be able to utilize them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)