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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)