I'm a little less murky today and so feel more prepared to explore the topic of online gaming. So without further ado...
1. It is our responsibility to provide resources that are useful and/or desired to our users. It is not our job to dictate to them what they should find useful, or what they should desire. This stance on my part probably comes as no surprise. Years back, when I was in grad school, there was a spunky DIY lass named Violet who handcrafted an amazing zine called The free-press death ship. I was and remain a huge admirer of Violet because I'm sure it was no small feat to create this publication. Violet was a prickly pear and she saved the bulk of her ire for the institution of the public library. That's right--she hated public libraries something fierce. But I admire the hell out of anyone who's willing to devote what must have been hundreds of hours to a publication the bulk of which was spent on complaining about the Dewey Decimal system, or ISBNs. I distinctly remember that one of her contributors reported that a public library had de-accessioned (weeded) most of its classical LP collection to make room for Spanish language materials. This made the whole FPDS bunch hopping mad. That LP collection had some gems in it! And those dumb mouth-breathing librarians weeded it to make way for some stupid Spanish trade fiction! Or something! Well, now, you see where I'm going with this don't you? I have a hunch those LPs weren't racking up the circulation numbers. I have a hunch the ethnic demographic of that certain branch had seen some big changes. And I bet those librarians were just audacious enough to provide their user (taxpayer) base with materials they wanted and needed. There's a connection here. Libraries are always saying they want to draw in the youth audience. We do great with kids and adults, but there's a big gap in between and we need to do more than just hope that the little ones that were at story hour when they were 5 come back again someday in adulthood. Online gaming is one way to do this. For the youth audience, online gaming is what they are using. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant.
2. We should like it. Online gaming is, indeed, literacy activity:
"In recent years, researchers and educators have put forth the notion that playing videogames requires learners to enact a form of literacy that is qualitatively different from, yet as sophisticated as traditional academic literacy (Gee, 2003a; Squire, 2005, 2008; Steinkuehler, 2008). On their way to becoming videogame-literate, players engage series of complex problem-solving activities that require them to think strategically as well as engage on highly interactive cycles of hypothesis generation and testing akin to those that take place in science and good composition (Gee, 2003a, p. 90)." http://www.glsconference.org/2008/session.html?id=40
Note the Steinkuehler reference. The Metronet lecture I attended was conducted by her (Constance Steinkuehler) and Kurt Squire. They are professors at the University of Wisconsin--Madison.
Here are her Powerpoint slides:
http://www.metrolibraries.net/res/pdfs/Steinkuehler.pdf
Steinkuehler makes an incredibly compelling argument for the value of online gaming in general and, in particular, for online gaming in the public library. Slide 74 of her presentation annotates a typical online gaming exchange and makes clear its relevance as a literacy activity.
3. But aren't online gamers crazy? Aren't they always screaming for Mountain Dew and playing until they drop from exhaustion? At the Metronet lecture, someone in the audience asked a question along these lines to Steinkuehler and without missing a beat she shrugged and said something to the effect of: addictive behavior is addictive behavior. People get compulsive about knitting. That's a behavior issue, which the library needs to have policies in place to address. It is not, in and of itself, an issue around online gaming. In many ways this is a simplistic answer--I'm aware of that. But I think she has a point. Misbehavior is misbehavior.
Let's also not forget that the bulk of online gamers are, in fact, NOT annoying teenagers. The teenagers are just the loud ones.
There's a lot going on here with this issue. But I do think that providing people with a controlled space for online gaming in the public library is a good thing.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Thing #15: online gaming
This Thing is concerned with online gaming in libraries. I actually attended a Metronet event a few years back on this topic that was great and how I wish I could just link to that and be done.
I'm for encouraging gaming in libraries. There. I said it.
Can you tell I'm tired? Can you tell I feel I have nothing more to say on this topic?
And now, for your viewing enjoyment, the Ninja Librarian:
I'm for encouraging gaming in libraries. There. I said it.
Can you tell I'm tired? Can you tell I feel I have nothing more to say on this topic?
And now, for your viewing enjoyment, the Ninja Librarian:
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thing #14: LibraryThing
LibraryThing is a hoot. I've actually been a member since early 2007, but it's been ages since I visited. I will need to make it a regular stop once again.
LibraryThing is, to start, an online cataloging tool. Amazon or Library of Congress can be searched and titles loaded into your online shelf. But what makes it so fun is all the discussion groups, of which "Librarians who LibraryThing" is the largest. There are all the standard groups you would expect--YA, sci-fi and so on, but then some real niche ones: BBC Radio 3 listeners, tea drinkers, self-described heathens. Then you can always feel bad for the communities with one member, like the "emo/goths can read" group that the creator describes as "We can prove to people thet [sic] we are not as dumb as people think even non emo/goths can join to help protest" Note to emo/goth can read group founder: my friend, you are on your own. Oh, but you knew that.
Apparently some libraries use LibraryThing as their catalog. This makes sense to me as a cost-effective way to get it done, and that it may be particularly well suited to the small specialized collection.
I must confess I somehow got sucked into Good Reads at the expense of LibraryThing. Good Reads is kinda-sorta the same thing. I feel a little shameful about it, now. I feel like the good-looking jock in a John Hughes movie who knew the dorky girl and liked her fine but then pursues and becomes besotted with the cheerleader only to find at the conclusion of the film that the cheerleader has no soul and the dorky girl is actually what he wanted all along. Yes, that's exactly what I feel like.
LibraryThing is, to start, an online cataloging tool. Amazon or Library of Congress can be searched and titles loaded into your online shelf. But what makes it so fun is all the discussion groups, of which "Librarians who LibraryThing" is the largest. There are all the standard groups you would expect--YA, sci-fi and so on, but then some real niche ones: BBC Radio 3 listeners, tea drinkers, self-described heathens. Then you can always feel bad for the communities with one member, like the "emo/goths can read" group that the creator describes as "We can prove to people thet [sic] we are not as dumb as people think even non emo/goths can join to help protest" Note to emo/goth can read group founder: my friend, you are on your own. Oh, but you knew that.
Apparently some libraries use LibraryThing as their catalog. This makes sense to me as a cost-effective way to get it done, and that it may be particularly well suited to the small specialized collection.
I must confess I somehow got sucked into Good Reads at the expense of LibraryThing. Good Reads is kinda-sorta the same thing. I feel a little shameful about it, now. I feel like the good-looking jock in a John Hughes movie who knew the dorky girl and liked her fine but then pursues and becomes besotted with the cheerleader only to find at the conclusion of the film that the cheerleader has no soul and the dorky girl is actually what he wanted all along. Yes, that's exactly what I feel like.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Thing #13: Productivity Tools
These are all organizational tools--online calendars, task lists, personalized starting points from Google, etc., and as such they would primarily be useful in libraries as an aid to library administrators to assist them in keeping their act together. Other than this rather abstracted notion of helping our users (through our own increased efficiency) I'm not sure what the direct application would be. But then, I'm tired. Who knows--maybe I'm missing something obvious. Ummm, helping users track when their books are due? Seems like we've got that pretty well covered. I get automatic email reminders when items are coming due, which is a great service.
Starting off with iGoogle: I fell in love with this instantly. It is, however, the opposite of a productivity tool. When you set up iGoogle as your Google search page, you get all sorts of personalized tabs. I have Home, Minneapolis, News, Cooking, Politics, Business and Art. Each is its own page. You can customize what portlets you view on each page. For example, I removed Fox News from my news page. Then I moved the remaining portals around so CNN and NY Times were organized front and center. I believe I mentioned recently that I'm elitist, so this action will come as no surprise. For the Cooking page I added the "World's Healthiest Foods" portlet (for today: swiss chard). A surprisingly fun thing to do is change the "theme" of the header for each of your pages. There are lists and lists of themes, each by a different artist. You can also add a zillion gadgets wherever you like. I added a portal that displays the current phase of the moon. (Waxing Gibbous, one of the lesser known American Transcendentalists.) I say it's the opposite of a productivity tool, though, because it's very easy to get sucked into any one of the portals. And God forbid you add the Tetris gadget. (Does anyone else remember Tetris? I know people who flunked out of college because of Tetris. Well, at least partially because of Tetris.) So, for the self-disciplined a big thumbs up. For those like me, iGoogle should probably be avoided in the workplace.
Online calendars: very nice, but I use my Outlook calendar efficiently enough, thank you. This also reminds me of a blurb I saw years back for an amazing information technology--it was lightweight, easily portable, had a finding tool built in, easy to navigate, easy to mark. It was a book. A printed book. So let's not get carried away here. I also use a real, honest-to-goodness calendar to track my activities.
Ditto with the list managers. I tried out the one called Remember the Milk. This is useful, but isn't a piece of paper also very useful? And lighter? And doesn't require a power source? Am I missing something?
Summary: I'm an iGoogle convert. I'll wait on the rest until the capability to just plug into the hive mind is fully functional.
Starting off with iGoogle: I fell in love with this instantly. It is, however, the opposite of a productivity tool. When you set up iGoogle as your Google search page, you get all sorts of personalized tabs. I have Home, Minneapolis, News, Cooking, Politics, Business and Art. Each is its own page. You can customize what portlets you view on each page. For example, I removed Fox News from my news page. Then I moved the remaining portals around so CNN and NY Times were organized front and center. I believe I mentioned recently that I'm elitist, so this action will come as no surprise. For the Cooking page I added the "World's Healthiest Foods" portlet (for today: swiss chard). A surprisingly fun thing to do is change the "theme" of the header for each of your pages. There are lists and lists of themes, each by a different artist. You can also add a zillion gadgets wherever you like. I added a portal that displays the current phase of the moon. (Waxing Gibbous, one of the lesser known American Transcendentalists.) I say it's the opposite of a productivity tool, though, because it's very easy to get sucked into any one of the portals. And God forbid you add the Tetris gadget. (Does anyone else remember Tetris? I know people who flunked out of college because of Tetris. Well, at least partially because of Tetris.) So, for the self-disciplined a big thumbs up. For those like me, iGoogle should probably be avoided in the workplace.
Online calendars: very nice, but I use my Outlook calendar efficiently enough, thank you. This also reminds me of a blurb I saw years back for an amazing information technology--it was lightweight, easily portable, had a finding tool built in, easy to navigate, easy to mark. It was a book. A printed book. So let's not get carried away here. I also use a real, honest-to-goodness calendar to track my activities.
Ditto with the list managers. I tried out the one called Remember the Milk. This is useful, but isn't a piece of paper also very useful? And lighter? And doesn't require a power source? Am I missing something?
Summary: I'm an iGoogle convert. I'll wait on the rest until the capability to just plug into the hive mind is fully functional.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Thing #12: Social Media Sites
Okaaaaay. That's about enough of that.
Thing 12 is concerned with the social media sites Digg, Reddit, Newsvine, and Mixx. Reading though the description of what these sites do, I could see potential usefulness. These sites allow web viewers to post stories they've read there. Visitors to the sites then rate them. Highest ratest stories swim to the top. Theoretically, these are useful meta tools. They filter web content and draw out the high quality stories (in theory). Then--theoretically--librarians can go to the site and take a quick look to see what's of interest to web users and get a jump on reference needs.
But, oh, oh the humanity.
Quick overview: Digg receives a B+ for interface design and clear instructions for use.
Newsvine receives a B for okay design and okay instructions for use.
Mixx is awarded a C for being mediocre.
Reddit receives a C- for appearing, in every way, as if it were designed by and for 15 year olds. Admittedly, 15 year olds nowadays can make some damn cool stuff on the web, but still. Still.
Here's a story I am both compelled and embarrassed to share: a few years back I took one of those online quizzes to determine where I fell on the political spectrum.* You know these things--you get asked all sort of questions about where you stand on gun control, social welfare programs, etc. And then came the fateful question. It was: "I think most people are too stupid to know what's good for them." Friends, there was only a Yes button and a No button. There was no hedging allowed. And I stared at this for quite awhile, and I desparately wanted to click No but I know in my heart the answer was Yes. Yes, I think most people are too stupid to know what's good for them. There, I said it. And I clicked it.
The point to this anecdote is that, being the elitist that I clearly am, I am forced to conclude after viewing these sites, that perhaps the world is not ready to know what the masses consider the top stories. It's a scary world out there, friends, especially when the content is dictated, apparently, by a demographic that generates advertising revenue around women in too tight t-shirts.
But then again, I am a librarian, after all, and so perhaps my lofty stance is informed at least slightly by the fact that my profession is largely defined as being one that determines information content. Useful content. Quality content. Content that only sometimes includes a crotch shot of a Japanese schoolgirl.
*Social Democrat.
Thing 12 is concerned with the social media sites Digg, Reddit, Newsvine, and Mixx. Reading though the description of what these sites do, I could see potential usefulness. These sites allow web viewers to post stories they've read there. Visitors to the sites then rate them. Highest ratest stories swim to the top. Theoretically, these are useful meta tools. They filter web content and draw out the high quality stories (in theory). Then--theoretically--librarians can go to the site and take a quick look to see what's of interest to web users and get a jump on reference needs.
But, oh, oh the humanity.
Quick overview: Digg receives a B+ for interface design and clear instructions for use.
Newsvine receives a B for okay design and okay instructions for use.
Mixx is awarded a C for being mediocre.
Reddit receives a C- for appearing, in every way, as if it were designed by and for 15 year olds. Admittedly, 15 year olds nowadays can make some damn cool stuff on the web, but still. Still.
Here's a story I am both compelled and embarrassed to share: a few years back I took one of those online quizzes to determine where I fell on the political spectrum.* You know these things--you get asked all sort of questions about where you stand on gun control, social welfare programs, etc. And then came the fateful question. It was: "I think most people are too stupid to know what's good for them." Friends, there was only a Yes button and a No button. There was no hedging allowed. And I stared at this for quite awhile, and I desparately wanted to click No but I know in my heart the answer was Yes. Yes, I think most people are too stupid to know what's good for them. There, I said it. And I clicked it.
The point to this anecdote is that, being the elitist that I clearly am, I am forced to conclude after viewing these sites, that perhaps the world is not ready to know what the masses consider the top stories. It's a scary world out there, friends, especially when the content is dictated, apparently, by a demographic that generates advertising revenue around women in too tight t-shirts.
But then again, I am a librarian, after all, and so perhaps my lofty stance is informed at least slightly by the fact that my profession is largely defined as being one that determines information content. Useful content. Quality content. Content that only sometimes includes a crotch shot of a Japanese schoolgirl.
*Social Democrat.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thing 11: Tagging and Del.icio.us
I've spent a lot of time on this one because it's huge. Which made it seem difficult for me to comment on. But I'm just going to forge ahead and not get bogged down. Also, I am particularly fuzzy-headed today, not for any fun reason, but simply because I am drained. I've been staggering around wondering why I'm so tired for the last few weeks and then I realized that the children are up much later with these long summer days and man, it's doing a number on me. Oh, for the dreary winter. Kidding.
So: del.icio.us.
Very cool and clearly a higher evolution of the old Furl app I fooled around with back in the day. Del.icio.us is the web within The Web. This whole trend of sites that enable us to monkey-vine swing from our interests to similar interests held by others is so cool, and so addictive. And so potentially time-consuming. I'm thinking here of Good Reads and Library Thing, both of which can easily chew up an afternoon. Also Netflix, now that I think of it.
So I set up an account and with the idea in mind of finding some good reader's advisory lists that will help me identify books to read to Eldest. I started at the Newbery Medal site. Tagged it with "kiddie lit".
23 other people have tagged the Newbery site. I followed the "kidslit" tag posted by bibliaugrapher to see what other sites he/she had listed. Mostly UK reader's advisory sites.
Then I sat back and tried to really think about how this app could really be used. Could it help with business research? I did a search for "green corporate". I got 1970 hits, some of them pretty good. I also got a list of related tags. This is useful! I could see using this tool for research, sure. One could dig their way down to fairly decent information pretty rapidly.
Does anyone know the reason behind the name? Am I the only person who finds it to be vaguely annoying?
So: del.icio.us.
Very cool and clearly a higher evolution of the old Furl app I fooled around with back in the day. Del.icio.us is the web within The Web. This whole trend of sites that enable us to monkey-vine swing from our interests to similar interests held by others is so cool, and so addictive. And so potentially time-consuming. I'm thinking here of Good Reads and Library Thing, both of which can easily chew up an afternoon. Also Netflix, now that I think of it.
So I set up an account and with the idea in mind of finding some good reader's advisory lists that will help me identify books to read to Eldest. I started at the Newbery Medal site. Tagged it with "kiddie lit".
23 other people have tagged the Newbery site. I followed the "kidslit" tag posted by bibliaugrapher to see what other sites he/she had listed. Mostly UK reader's advisory sites.
Then I sat back and tried to really think about how this app could really be used. Could it help with business research? I did a search for "green corporate". I got 1970 hits, some of them pretty good. I also got a list of related tags. This is useful! I could see using this tool for research, sure. One could dig their way down to fairly decent information pretty rapidly.
Does anyone know the reason behind the name? Am I the only person who finds it to be vaguely annoying?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Thing #10: Wikis
Oh, how I do love a good Wiki.
I was thinking earlier about Google and how I suspect that anyone that still thinks the "Google will destroy libraries" argument holds any water is undoubtedly not involved with the real work of libraries. The truth is, we have benefitted from Google. Oh, I know, I can practically hear the tortured cries of how stupid the young folk are, now they all just use Google, but I'm standing firm with my "the kids are alright" worldview and instead would posit that all this rampant Google usage gives librarians the chance to do higher-level information analysis. This is a recurring theme for me, but I just don't buy the argument that young people are that dumb. So now they go to Google, or they go to Wikipedia and they gather information. They get a starting point. And then they get to the higher level stuff on their own or though the gracious assistance of a librarian. We have better informed users that are coming to us with more specific information requests, right out of the gate. This is a good thing. I mean--it would have been so wonderful to have Wikipedia when I was in college! Say I had the assignment to write a paper on Hegel. I would have gone to Wikipedia, read the entry on Hegel, picked out what part of his theory really interested me, and then, using the references cited at the bottom of the entry, proceeding with the research knowing what I was looking for (say, Hegel and his concept of "world spirit"). Or I would have gone to a librarian and asked for help locating print volumes on Hegel, and then would have used the index to look up "world spirit". Boom--done--walk away. And this would have resulted, frankly, in better quality papers than the stuff I was writing in college. Explain to me, again, how this is a bad thing?
Thing #10 is on Wikis. This is a fun Thing, my favorite so far. I visited the Library Success wiki which is a wiki devoted to library best practices. It hasn't been heavily populated with entries (yet). But the section alone on weeding is excellent. At the bottom it lists articles of further interest and included this fantastic blog post by ricklibrarian about the decision to weed Compassionate conservatism by Marvin Olasky. His post perfectly captures what goes through the mind of the librarian when weighing whether a book should be weeded.
Then I visited the Albany County Public Library staff wiki and liked their quick-and-dirty process for cataloging papaerbacks. And I particularly liked their work process "Checklist for Psycho Space Puppet's Departure" which I was unable to quite figure out but which delighted me all the same. Rock on, Albany!
Last, I visited the 23 Things on a Stick wiki and left a note there... Was interested in this comment: I'm experimenting with this. Wikis can be fun but how can you ever trust the "information" you find on them???? Name not left, so if it's your comment, please feel free to let me know. Now, not to harsh on anonymous poster, and also not to fall down some epistemological rabbit's hole--but--anon, how can we trust any information? Oh, I know, juried academic journals, established sources... etc. How do we know what we know? How do we trust what we know? I, for one, trust Wikipedia because for some reason people have some kind of emotional investment in the idea of "truth" which is why studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as reliable (if not more reliable) than Encyclopedia Brittanica. I'm just ruminating here, but maybe our idea of critical analysis should extend beyond just checking that a source is "reliable", i.e., objective. Because isn't that what the naysayers want and claim Wikipedia does not provide--an objective source? I'm not so sure there ARE any objective sources. Oh, I don't mean to sound so ponderous and self-important. I just think examining motive is essential, whether it be applied to an academic journal or a Wikipedia entry. And I suspect we will revisit this concept when we get to the Thing on folksonomies and tags.
I was thinking earlier about Google and how I suspect that anyone that still thinks the "Google will destroy libraries" argument holds any water is undoubtedly not involved with the real work of libraries. The truth is, we have benefitted from Google. Oh, I know, I can practically hear the tortured cries of how stupid the young folk are, now they all just use Google, but I'm standing firm with my "the kids are alright" worldview and instead would posit that all this rampant Google usage gives librarians the chance to do higher-level information analysis. This is a recurring theme for me, but I just don't buy the argument that young people are that dumb. So now they go to Google, or they go to Wikipedia and they gather information. They get a starting point. And then they get to the higher level stuff on their own or though the gracious assistance of a librarian. We have better informed users that are coming to us with more specific information requests, right out of the gate. This is a good thing. I mean--it would have been so wonderful to have Wikipedia when I was in college! Say I had the assignment to write a paper on Hegel. I would have gone to Wikipedia, read the entry on Hegel, picked out what part of his theory really interested me, and then, using the references cited at the bottom of the entry, proceeding with the research knowing what I was looking for (say, Hegel and his concept of "world spirit"). Or I would have gone to a librarian and asked for help locating print volumes on Hegel, and then would have used the index to look up "world spirit". Boom--done--walk away. And this would have resulted, frankly, in better quality papers than the stuff I was writing in college. Explain to me, again, how this is a bad thing?
Thing #10 is on Wikis. This is a fun Thing, my favorite so far. I visited the Library Success wiki which is a wiki devoted to library best practices. It hasn't been heavily populated with entries (yet). But the section alone on weeding is excellent. At the bottom it lists articles of further interest and included this fantastic blog post by ricklibrarian about the decision to weed Compassionate conservatism by Marvin Olasky. His post perfectly captures what goes through the mind of the librarian when weighing whether a book should be weeded.
Then I visited the Albany County Public Library staff wiki and liked their quick-and-dirty process for cataloging papaerbacks. And I particularly liked their work process "Checklist for Psycho Space Puppet's Departure" which I was unable to quite figure out but which delighted me all the same. Rock on, Albany!
Last, I visited the 23 Things on a Stick wiki and left a note there... Was interested in this comment: I'm experimenting with this. Wikis can be fun but how can you ever trust the "information" you find on them???? Name not left, so if it's your comment, please feel free to let me know. Now, not to harsh on anonymous poster, and also not to fall down some epistemological rabbit's hole--but--anon, how can we trust any information? Oh, I know, juried academic journals, established sources... etc. How do we know what we know? How do we trust what we know? I, for one, trust Wikipedia because for some reason people have some kind of emotional investment in the idea of "truth" which is why studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as reliable (if not more reliable) than Encyclopedia Brittanica. I'm just ruminating here, but maybe our idea of critical analysis should extend beyond just checking that a source is "reliable", i.e., objective. Because isn't that what the naysayers want and claim Wikipedia does not provide--an objective source? I'm not so sure there ARE any objective sources. Oh, I don't mean to sound so ponderous and self-important. I just think examining motive is essential, whether it be applied to an academic journal or a Wikipedia entry. And I suspect we will revisit this concept when we get to the Thing on folksonomies and tags.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Zoho Writer is a beta app that works as a collaboration tool... In the simplest sense, it is a souped-up type of Microsoft Word that allows you to create docs and then allow other people acccess to it through the site, where they can make edits as necessary. The idea is that this type of tool eliminates the whole endless emailing of attachments back and forth. Users, coworkers, what have you, simply visit this site, log in, and work on the shared docs.
It's a great idea. But there are a lot of great ideas out there: Communism and those jars that contain both peanut butter and jelly spring to mind. Great in theory. But reality has a mind of its own. And things that are great ideas are often deeply flawed when put into practice (the former) or just straight-out disgusting (the latter).
See, I have some experience with this type of tool as my esteemed employer tried to implement something like this about three years ago. Through the company intranet we were all given access to "project spaces" where documents could be posted and then worked on collaboratively. No more attachments! they crowed. And this is the main aspect Zoho plays up, too. It's a great theory and I was something of a believer and I used our project space like a wild woman. Well, as wild as a woman can be when she's posting documents in a corporate setting. It's just not that wild-and-crazy of a scenario. But then I, like I suspect many others that walk the halls of this Death Star--oh! I mean Mother Ship! Mother Ship!--sort of... fell away from it. And the docs grew out of date. And the emails with attachments started to fly once again, the way weeds would poke up through the concrete in the post-apocalypse. Somehow like that.
So I am skeptical as to the usefulness and ultimate usability of this tool. About a year ago I was involved in an incredibly interesting research project for my job. We studied trends that would influence the development of legal research software applications. Really, I'm not kidding--it was incredibly interesting. And the main thing I remember from this project was that you can develop the coolest product in the world and if it's not some combination of cheap, easy, and adaptable it won't sell. What am I getting at? The fact is, this type of collaboration tool is not (yet) as intuitive and "easy" as the old way of sending email attachments. The steps aren't standardized enough (so it's not adaptable, i.e. flexible, pliable) and, let's face it, sending email attachments seems to work pretty well. So the sense I get is that people in development really want us to dig this type of tool, and they keep building more of them, and they keep trying to sell us on it's strong points, but the fact is, we just don't need this tool yet and so it won't be used. So stop trying to cram it down my throat.
Man, the similarities to Communism just keep getting stronger and stronger. I'm kidding. There are no similarities.
It's a great idea. But there are a lot of great ideas out there: Communism and those jars that contain both peanut butter and jelly spring to mind. Great in theory. But reality has a mind of its own. And things that are great ideas are often deeply flawed when put into practice (the former) or just straight-out disgusting (the latter).
See, I have some experience with this type of tool as my esteemed employer tried to implement something like this about three years ago. Through the company intranet we were all given access to "project spaces" where documents could be posted and then worked on collaboratively. No more attachments! they crowed. And this is the main aspect Zoho plays up, too. It's a great theory and I was something of a believer and I used our project space like a wild woman. Well, as wild as a woman can be when she's posting documents in a corporate setting. It's just not that wild-and-crazy of a scenario. But then I, like I suspect many others that walk the halls of this Death Star--oh! I mean Mother Ship! Mother Ship!--sort of... fell away from it. And the docs grew out of date. And the emails with attachments started to fly once again, the way weeds would poke up through the concrete in the post-apocalypse. Somehow like that.
So I am skeptical as to the usefulness and ultimate usability of this tool. About a year ago I was involved in an incredibly interesting research project for my job. We studied trends that would influence the development of legal research software applications. Really, I'm not kidding--it was incredibly interesting. And the main thing I remember from this project was that you can develop the coolest product in the world and if it's not some combination of cheap, easy, and adaptable it won't sell. What am I getting at? The fact is, this type of collaboration tool is not (yet) as intuitive and "easy" as the old way of sending email attachments. The steps aren't standardized enough (so it's not adaptable, i.e. flexible, pliable) and, let's face it, sending email attachments seems to work pretty well. So the sense I get is that people in development really want us to dig this type of tool, and they keep building more of them, and they keep trying to sell us on it's strong points, but the fact is, we just don't need this tool yet and so it won't be used. So stop trying to cram it down my throat.
Man, the similarities to Communism just keep getting stronger and stronger. I'm kidding. There are no similarities.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
First off, you'll notice the avatar is gone. Her withering, unblinking gaze proved to be too much for me.
Then you'll notice the picture cube of Eldest and I playing at the beach. Now, this is perhaps a bad sign--why do all the additional page elements seem to freak me out?--but this cube eeringly reminds me of the crystal prison cube used to hold General Zod and his partners in crime, Non and Ursa (what in the world did we do before Wikipedia?) in Superman II. So it doesn't seem very auspicious to me to have Eldest and I imprisoned in some intergalactic space cube. It just seems like begging the Gods for trouble.
So, in order to meet the requirements of this Thing (it's Thing #7) I'll just comment long enough to say that I can think of cool uses for this in a library webpage setting, primarily as a way to display bookcovers. Snazzy.
But here's something else: while fufilling this Thing, I set up a free account at Thumbstacks.com which is a tool to display a slide presentation (think PowerPoint) on a blog or webpage. During the registration I was required to answer a few innocuous questions--age, zip code, etc. After registering, to get to the tools, I needed to click through a number of ads with offers for free samples and such. The ads were for asthma medicine and some kind of house cleaning product. Huh. Once into the section where the tools were, there was a sidebar with ads for businesses in my city. I tell you, it felt oddly like I was being stalked. And also insulted. Asthma meds and cleaning spray? That's what I rate? Not sexy shoes, rave drugs or subscriptions to The New Yorker?
A few weeks ago I went to a SLA (Special Library Association) discussion on ethics. (As a side note, I think people outside the library world would be amazed with how obsessed librarians are with ethics, particularly in regards to patron privacy. Don't yell the phrase "patron privacy" in a movie theater crowded with librarians as there'll be a stampede of librarians running to fall on the sword. Librarians are all secretly dying to go to prison for defending patron privacy. Defying a subpoena or what have you. They're a nutty bunch that way. I guess I'm guilty of it, too. People in my (corporate, business) library who are looking for a book will occasionally, when they find out it's checked out, casually ask who has it. What they're thinking is, "Oh, I'll just go up and ask whoever it is to give it to me when they're done". You'd think they asked me to sell state secrets to the communists or something. "Absolutely not!" I bark. Really, it's a bit much. But I can't help it. I'm a professional. I have the degree and everything.) So of course these ads targeted quite specifically to me, a housecleaning-challenged asthma sufferer in Minneapolis (that's actually not true, I don't have asthma), make me think of privacy, and that makes me think of ethics. Which is what made me think of the SLA discussion.
This ethics discussion became inevitably concerned with how Google now basically knows everything about us. Do our users understand that? And, further, do we have an obligation to make sure they do? Because conventional wisdom says our users are throwing away their privacy willy-nilly. The simple answer is no. Just as it's not our responsibility to inform the patron that checks out all the books on how to make a bomb (this is the classic library school example) that actually making a bomb and detonating it is illegal, it is not our job to make sure everyone understands that they leave a pretty wide swath of personal information behind them as they travel through virtual space.
I say that the simple answer, because in truth, I'm not even sure if this issue still exists. I think web 2.0 has perhaps altered our whole conception of privacy. I don't think people actually have any expectation of privacy once they start using some of the tools we have available now. Or if they do, they wager it's worth the trade. This is when (I hate to say it but) older librarians start huffing and puffing about "kids these days" but I'm not convinced it's just a matter of how stupid our younger users are. Because I don't think they're stupid at all.
Now, at the end of the day, librarians are professionally commited to protecting privacy. Which means we're not the ones pointing the authorites {cough Nazis cough cough} to user information or circulation histories. But perhaps we should spend a little more time mulling over our patrons changing relationship with the concept of privacy before we dismiss them as fools.
Then you'll notice the picture cube of Eldest and I playing at the beach. Now, this is perhaps a bad sign--why do all the additional page elements seem to freak me out?--but this cube eeringly reminds me of the crystal prison cube used to hold General Zod and his partners in crime, Non and Ursa (what in the world did we do before Wikipedia?) in Superman II. So it doesn't seem very auspicious to me to have Eldest and I imprisoned in some intergalactic space cube. It just seems like begging the Gods for trouble.
So, in order to meet the requirements of this Thing (it's Thing #7) I'll just comment long enough to say that I can think of cool uses for this in a library webpage setting, primarily as a way to display bookcovers. Snazzy.
But here's something else: while fufilling this Thing, I set up a free account at Thumbstacks.com which is a tool to display a slide presentation (think PowerPoint) on a blog or webpage. During the registration I was required to answer a few innocuous questions--age, zip code, etc. After registering, to get to the tools, I needed to click through a number of ads with offers for free samples and such. The ads were for asthma medicine and some kind of house cleaning product. Huh. Once into the section where the tools were, there was a sidebar with ads for businesses in my city. I tell you, it felt oddly like I was being stalked. And also insulted. Asthma meds and cleaning spray? That's what I rate? Not sexy shoes, rave drugs or subscriptions to The New Yorker?
A few weeks ago I went to a SLA (Special Library Association) discussion on ethics. (As a side note, I think people outside the library world would be amazed with how obsessed librarians are with ethics, particularly in regards to patron privacy. Don't yell the phrase "patron privacy" in a movie theater crowded with librarians as there'll be a stampede of librarians running to fall on the sword. Librarians are all secretly dying to go to prison for defending patron privacy. Defying a subpoena or what have you. They're a nutty bunch that way. I guess I'm guilty of it, too. People in my (corporate, business) library who are looking for a book will occasionally, when they find out it's checked out, casually ask who has it. What they're thinking is, "Oh, I'll just go up and ask whoever it is to give it to me when they're done". You'd think they asked me to sell state secrets to the communists or something. "Absolutely not!" I bark. Really, it's a bit much. But I can't help it. I'm a professional. I have the degree and everything.) So of course these ads targeted quite specifically to me, a housecleaning-challenged asthma sufferer in Minneapolis (that's actually not true, I don't have asthma), make me think of privacy, and that makes me think of ethics. Which is what made me think of the SLA discussion.
This ethics discussion became inevitably concerned with how Google now basically knows everything about us. Do our users understand that? And, further, do we have an obligation to make sure they do? Because conventional wisdom says our users are throwing away their privacy willy-nilly. The simple answer is no. Just as it's not our responsibility to inform the patron that checks out all the books on how to make a bomb (this is the classic library school example) that actually making a bomb and detonating it is illegal, it is not our job to make sure everyone understands that they leave a pretty wide swath of personal information behind them as they travel through virtual space.
I say that the simple answer, because in truth, I'm not even sure if this issue still exists. I think web 2.0 has perhaps altered our whole conception of privacy. I don't think people actually have any expectation of privacy once they start using some of the tools we have available now. Or if they do, they wager it's worth the trade. This is when (I hate to say it but) older librarians start huffing and puffing about "kids these days" but I'm not convinced it's just a matter of how stupid our younger users are. Because I don't think they're stupid at all.
Now, at the end of the day, librarians are professionally commited to protecting privacy. Which means we're not the ones pointing the authorites {cough Nazis cough cough} to user information or circulation histories. But perhaps we should spend a little more time mulling over our patrons changing relationship with the concept of privacy before we dismiss them as fools.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
And now with new kung-fu moves!
I'm back, better than ever [shadow boxing like Rocky, then alternating to a series of faux kung-fu moves] and ready to rock the world with my 23 Thing-ness.
I had skulked off into the virtual darkness after kind of petering out after an initial burst of enthusiasm. Basically, I had started to feel a little overwhelmed by the 23 things. Setting up the blog was as easy as pie, but then I started to come up against things that actually necessitated coherent thought which is not always my strong suit. So I wimped out.
But I had regrets, yes I did. I had let myself down. And I had proved myself as a slacker web 2.0 maven. (Topic for another day: how I truly am the epitome of the Gen X stereotypes. It's my generation, people! For real! I just look at those hardworking Millenials and think: man, am I glad they're motivated because someone has to be and this way it doesn't have to be me.) So I bashfully revisited the scene of the crime--the 23 Things blog, that states the steps (http://23thingsonastick.blogspot.com/) and found out that another round of the 23 Things is being planned, with registration to start May 15th. And all of a sudden, I'm not a slacker, I'm actually way ahead of schedule as I've already started the project. I'm the Hermione Granger of library 2.0 initiatives. Take that, Millenials! Eat my dust!
I also, this time, will actually register and hopefully the accountability will make a difference.
So. My legions of readers, by which I mean my friend Fresca, will notice I have added a Yahoo avatar which is actually a requirement of part of the first Thing. I created her awhile back, but didn't want to add the image because there's no way I look like that (except in a very roundabout way, as she has pale skin, brown hair, and is in what looks like a library) and apparently I'm a very literal minded person as this fact--that she doesn't really look like me--bothered me so much I couldn't bear to add it as a side element. However, in light of my renewed enthusiasm, here she is. Here's a thought: someone should do a study on what kind of people create what kind of avatars (in say, Second Life). Like I said, I'm a literal gal but I do admire people that create themselves as big robots with wings or what have you. So what personality type creates what kind of avatars? Scholars, get to work.
Frankly, my avatar kind of scares me, so I'm not sure how long she'll stay. A psychologist would have a field day with this.
Here are some of my goals for round 2 of the project:
1. Actually do it.
That about covers it right there. Succinctness, I am the esssence of you. Or is that: succinctness, of you I am the essence?
I had skulked off into the virtual darkness after kind of petering out after an initial burst of enthusiasm. Basically, I had started to feel a little overwhelmed by the 23 things. Setting up the blog was as easy as pie, but then I started to come up against things that actually necessitated coherent thought which is not always my strong suit. So I wimped out.
But I had regrets, yes I did. I had let myself down. And I had proved myself as a slacker web 2.0 maven. (Topic for another day: how I truly am the epitome of the Gen X stereotypes. It's my generation, people! For real! I just look at those hardworking Millenials and think: man, am I glad they're motivated because someone has to be and this way it doesn't have to be me.) So I bashfully revisited the scene of the crime--the 23 Things blog, that states the steps (http://23thingsonastick.blogspot.com/) and found out that another round of the 23 Things is being planned, with registration to start May 15th. And all of a sudden, I'm not a slacker, I'm actually way ahead of schedule as I've already started the project. I'm the Hermione Granger of library 2.0 initiatives. Take that, Millenials! Eat my dust!
I also, this time, will actually register and hopefully the accountability will make a difference.
So. My legions of readers, by which I mean my friend Fresca, will notice I have added a Yahoo avatar which is actually a requirement of part of the first Thing. I created her awhile back, but didn't want to add the image because there's no way I look like that (except in a very roundabout way, as she has pale skin, brown hair, and is in what looks like a library) and apparently I'm a very literal minded person as this fact--that she doesn't really look like me--bothered me so much I couldn't bear to add it as a side element. However, in light of my renewed enthusiasm, here she is. Here's a thought: someone should do a study on what kind of people create what kind of avatars (in say, Second Life). Like I said, I'm a literal gal but I do admire people that create themselves as big robots with wings or what have you. So what personality type creates what kind of avatars? Scholars, get to work.
Frankly, my avatar kind of scares me, so I'm not sure how long she'll stay. A psychologist would have a field day with this.
Here are some of my goals for round 2 of the project:
1. Actually do it.
That about covers it right there. Succinctness, I am the esssence of you. Or is that: succinctness, of you I am the essence?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
I Stubbed My Toe On The Technology
Oh, I should forge on ahead and explore the next Thing--it's something really snazzy and techy: eFolios--online portfolios to be used as a career enhancer or some such thing. It had these action steps to take before starting:
Reflect: Reflect on what you’ve accomplished in school and in your career, and how it fits with your goals.
Collect: Collect the information for your electronic portfolio. To learn more about what to include, read below.
Select: Select those documents that are most pertinent to your goals and keep them handy as you work on your electronic portfolio.
Build: Build your site using the electronic portfolio tool. For ideas on what you can do with your electronic portfolio, see Gallery.
Publish: Publish your portfolio. You can let others read all, or parts of, your site. Targeting is helpful if you have multiple skills and are open to a number of different employment options.
Frankly, I read this and I became very sleepy. And I just had a mocha. That's a bad sign. I mean, I don't even want to think about action step 1. Does anyone out there really have an overwhelming desire to reflect on what they've accomplished in their careers? Apart from the masochists, I mean. And the show-offs. Don't get me wrong--I'm actually quite happy with my quote unquote career, I just don't have a desire to dwell on it, the way I lately have a desire to dwell on the logistics of homeschooling, the gathering of fiddleheads, the winning of lotteries and the cuteness of my children.
The other thing that made me sleepy, or I should say lethargic, is my library bud's blog http://23sticketc.blogspot.com/. It was so cool. She makes it look so effortless, this Stick stuff. So I looked at her blog and thought: what the hell is a screed? Am I supposed to know that? Did I skip that part? Did I miss something? Could I possibly be more fuzzy brained? And I became very tired.
Ditto my virtual bud (can I call her that? I feel like we're friends, although I have no idea who she is or where she is or even what her name is--funny, isn't it, the nature of these virtual relationships...) Anyway, my virtual bud Cara Mama http://caramamamia.blogspot.com/ who writes these really sweet and sharp entries about her daughter and here I am and you'd hardly even know I have kids, truthfully, I threw in the reference above about their cuteness just so I wouldn't feel like a horrible mother. A mother who has a blog and never even talks about her kids. How messed up is that?
Topping it all off is the ever-brilliant Well Dressed Librarian http://welldressedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ and his ridiculously over-the-top funny post which slyly compares reference assistance to unspeakable sex acts and/or prostitution (it's funnier than it sounds) and I should just crawl into bed, pull the covers over my head, and call it a day. Wake me up in the next millenium.
Reflect: Reflect on what you’ve accomplished in school and in your career, and how it fits with your goals.
Collect: Collect the information for your electronic portfolio. To learn more about what to include, read below.
Select: Select those documents that are most pertinent to your goals and keep them handy as you work on your electronic portfolio.
Build: Build your site using the electronic portfolio tool. For ideas on what you can do with your electronic portfolio, see Gallery.
Publish: Publish your portfolio. You can let others read all, or parts of, your site. Targeting is helpful if you have multiple skills and are open to a number of different employment options.
Frankly, I read this and I became very sleepy. And I just had a mocha. That's a bad sign. I mean, I don't even want to think about action step 1. Does anyone out there really have an overwhelming desire to reflect on what they've accomplished in their careers? Apart from the masochists, I mean. And the show-offs. Don't get me wrong--I'm actually quite happy with my quote unquote career, I just don't have a desire to dwell on it, the way I lately have a desire to dwell on the logistics of homeschooling, the gathering of fiddleheads, the winning of lotteries and the cuteness of my children.
The other thing that made me sleepy, or I should say lethargic, is my library bud's blog http://23sticketc.blogspot.com/. It was so cool. She makes it look so effortless, this Stick stuff. So I looked at her blog and thought: what the hell is a screed? Am I supposed to know that? Did I skip that part? Did I miss something? Could I possibly be more fuzzy brained? And I became very tired.
Ditto my virtual bud (can I call her that? I feel like we're friends, although I have no idea who she is or where she is or even what her name is--funny, isn't it, the nature of these virtual relationships...) Anyway, my virtual bud Cara Mama http://caramamamia.blogspot.com/ who writes these really sweet and sharp entries about her daughter and here I am and you'd hardly even know I have kids, truthfully, I threw in the reference above about their cuteness just so I wouldn't feel like a horrible mother. A mother who has a blog and never even talks about her kids. How messed up is that?
Topping it all off is the ever-brilliant Well Dressed Librarian http://welldressedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ and his ridiculously over-the-top funny post which slyly compares reference assistance to unspeakable sex acts and/or prostitution (it's funnier than it sounds) and I should just crawl into bed, pull the covers over my head, and call it a day. Wake me up in the next millenium.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Wow! Have you heard of this thing called "The Internet"?
I'm not so jazzed about the next of the 23 Things--IMing. Are people still doing that? It seems IM reference services were what everyone (if everyone is a librarian) was talking about three years ago. To my jaundiced eye it appears that--obviously--we need to offer IM reference along with all the other ways we need to offer reference assistance. Which is to say, if people are out there using [blank] as a way to communicate, then we need to be figuring it out. Any resistance is soooo 2003.
Does anyone else remember the very first time they accessed the Internet? I sure do. It was through the Gopher service run by the University of Minnesota, way back in 1994. And it wasn't even "the Internet" as we now know it, that's for sure. The first thing I saw was, I believe, a precursor to a Word doc, and it was some government communication (looked like a text file) out of Israel. And it Blew. My. Mind.
Nowadays, everything in the online world is so pliable, and the interface is so friendly. I'm fascinated, for example, by the layout capabilities of this blog. There are so many bells and whistles available and--most amazing--they can be utilized by a person like me with absolutely no programming experience.
You know, we talk and talk about how the relationship between people and information has changed--that there is this infinite amount of information out there and where do librarians fit in, do they at all, and oh my goodness what if people no longer need us? Of course they do. They do now, they did then, and they always will. People don't just need information, they need useful information. The University of Buffalo YouTube bit (which I will try to locate and post here) where they demonstrate their IM reference service is a perfect example: "Hey, overwhelmed undergrad--let me know what your paper is on and I will show you the way." Any student with an ounce of common sense will immediately see the value here. So you can place me in the camp of people who think this "information revolution" is all for the good in terms of librarianship.
I'm very impressed that I somehow managed to yank the content of this post somehow back to IMing.
Does anyone else remember the very first time they accessed the Internet? I sure do. It was through the Gopher service run by the University of Minnesota, way back in 1994. And it wasn't even "the Internet" as we now know it, that's for sure. The first thing I saw was, I believe, a precursor to a Word doc, and it was some government communication (looked like a text file) out of Israel. And it Blew. My. Mind.
Nowadays, everything in the online world is so pliable, and the interface is so friendly. I'm fascinated, for example, by the layout capabilities of this blog. There are so many bells and whistles available and--most amazing--they can be utilized by a person like me with absolutely no programming experience.
You know, we talk and talk about how the relationship between people and information has changed--that there is this infinite amount of information out there and where do librarians fit in, do they at all, and oh my goodness what if people no longer need us? Of course they do. They do now, they did then, and they always will. People don't just need information, they need useful information. The University of Buffalo YouTube bit (which I will try to locate and post here) where they demonstrate their IM reference service is a perfect example: "Hey, overwhelmed undergrad--let me know what your paper is on and I will show you the way." Any student with an ounce of common sense will immediately see the value here. So you can place me in the camp of people who think this "information revolution" is all for the good in terms of librarianship.
I'm very impressed that I somehow managed to yank the content of this post somehow back to IMing.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Stick-y thing 6: Online Image Generators
To your left, check out a trading card I created at Big Huge Labs (http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/). Now, this, I can see the potential of. Or is that: Of this, I can see potential? In any case, this website rocks with tons of fun ways to manipulate your digital images. Now, I'm sad to say it's a well-known secret that librarians are horrible horrible horrible at marketing. It's just not a skill-set that comes with the job. Librarians are great at doing. They are not so great at telling people what it is, exactly, that they do. Case in point: years ago I worked on a family literacy project collaboration between my library school and a local branch. Oh, we were amazing. We had Head Start involved, ECFE, crafts, themes, in-depth analysis of the targeted demographic--the pedagological stars were all aligned. I was dazzled by our program. Session arrives and we're all beyond excited. And what happened? No one came. That's right, friends. We had forgotten, for the most part, to tell anyone about it. Oh, there were other issues there--a last minute change of venue and such, but in all our excitement we had left out marketing. And this is how I learned that all library schools should include a "Marketing Your Library Services" among its core curriculum. My point, in retelling this sad little tale, is that Big Huge Labs makes marketing SO easy for graphic design-challenged librarians, of which there are many. There are no longer any excuses. I created this trading card in 5 minutes. Imagine one for each of your staff (like Carleton College, bless their hearts). Imagine one for each of your work-study. Oh! You could do trading cards for staff picks of books. At the site you can also make movie posters (I'm definitely going to fool around with that), mosiacs, magazine covers. Tons of fun stuff. And, unlike Flickr, which I saw as only useful for certain types of libraries, I see image generating tools as being useful for all libraries, regardless of type. They make it easy. It's really fun! Go on, try it. I double-dog dare you.
*********
Another thing librarians are horrible at, apparently, is creating really catchy titles for their blog posts.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Flickr'd
Very cool possibilities with Flickr. What immediately strikes me is its potential as a storage space for images--we recently bought a secondary hard drive for this purpose, but in the case of a fire we'd still need to rescue THAT. Using Flickr, the images really are "safe". And we can upload in batches, which would make the process pretty fast. As for the sharing--I think we're going to see a theme here--I think that's cool for people that are computerheads, i.e., people who are online ALL THE TIME. Me, I have two little kids and where I'm at in my life, I'm not going to spend hours--or even minutes, truthfully--randomly surfing Flickr images. On the other hand, if I did need to find an image of penguins or something, I think I would go to Flickr.
I'm not entirely sure how a library would use Flickr. The Clemens & Alcuin Libraries' example--that's cool and all, but do they get a lot of circulation that way? It's seems like a long and winding road to the library and its materials to me.
I feel like I'm coming across as a naysayer, and that's not my intent. I guess I do just fear that--as was discussed in the initial Library 2.0 subject--that we sacrifice something real and good for the mere idea of the usefulness of technology. I may accept a business case for the use of Flickr in a high school or academic library (because of the user demographic) but no way for a public library. I just don't think the average public library user is at that level. No offense to the average public library user--but when I think of one of my favorite branches, the Rondo Community Outreach library of St. Paul, I feel fairly sure that their service to the local Somali and Hmong populations needs to be a little more direct than posting images of their collection on a Web 2.0 tool like Flickr.
***************
Off topic, and on the subject of RSS feeds, I suddenly recalled the other day that a couple of years ago I was using a service that was clearly a precursor to RSS--the service I used, I'm sure there were others, but the service I used was Furl. You marked your websites and then the URLs were stored at the Furl site. It was like storing your bookmarks at that location, so that no matter what computer you were on you had access to all your favorite sites. It was cool, and convenient. It was lacking the update feature--just held the static URL--but I can see that it was a similar concept. I think I need to go back to Google Reader and fool around with that some more. Maybe it was just the interface that was turning me off.
I'm not entirely sure how a library would use Flickr. The Clemens & Alcuin Libraries' example--that's cool and all, but do they get a lot of circulation that way? It's seems like a long and winding road to the library and its materials to me.
I feel like I'm coming across as a naysayer, and that's not my intent. I guess I do just fear that--as was discussed in the initial Library 2.0 subject--that we sacrifice something real and good for the mere idea of the usefulness of technology. I may accept a business case for the use of Flickr in a high school or academic library (because of the user demographic) but no way for a public library. I just don't think the average public library user is at that level. No offense to the average public library user--but when I think of one of my favorite branches, the Rondo Community Outreach library of St. Paul, I feel fairly sure that their service to the local Somali and Hmong populations needs to be a little more direct than posting images of their collection on a Web 2.0 tool like Flickr.
***************
Off topic, and on the subject of RSS feeds, I suddenly recalled the other day that a couple of years ago I was using a service that was clearly a precursor to RSS--the service I used, I'm sure there were others, but the service I used was Furl. You marked your websites and then the URLs were stored at the Furl site. It was like storing your bookmarks at that location, so that no matter what computer you were on you had access to all your favorite sites. It was cool, and convenient. It was lacking the update feature--just held the static URL--but I can see that it was a similar concept. I think I need to go back to Google Reader and fool around with that some more. Maybe it was just the interface that was turning me off.
Monday, March 17, 2008
RSS feeds serve lazy bloggers like me
Of course, now that I'm offically on the blogger side of things, I can see the usefulness of a RSS feed--it would alert my legions of devoted readers to my sporadic posts.
Coming up: more Things On A Stick.
Coming up: more Things On A Stick.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
RSS feeds
Is there something I'm not getting?
I've set up RSS feeds for some of my often visited sites, and, yeah, I get that now I can go to Google Reader and see if there's new postings from there but it never seemed that difficult or time consuming to check out my favorite sites using the favorites function. Plus, blog content as displayed at Google Reader seems stripped of context. Sure, the entries now "come to me" but considering the whole concept of ambient findability, isn't everything, everywhere, immediately accessible anyway? I.e., I'm already plugged into the hive brain by virtue of being online. And I still have to go to the Google Reader site.
Admittedly, I'm not a hardcore user. There's only a handful of sites to which I'm truly devoted. And I suppose I could see how this could be very useful to someone whose job requires them to be monitoring a large number of sites. So that English teacher who gives her students the assignment of starting a blog and then needs to be checking all of them--for her, a good thing indeed.
For me, a little baffling. But I will keep fooling around with it and update here if my initial impression changes.
I've set up RSS feeds for some of my often visited sites, and, yeah, I get that now I can go to Google Reader and see if there's new postings from there but it never seemed that difficult or time consuming to check out my favorite sites using the favorites function. Plus, blog content as displayed at Google Reader seems stripped of context. Sure, the entries now "come to me" but considering the whole concept of ambient findability, isn't everything, everywhere, immediately accessible anyway? I.e., I'm already plugged into the hive brain by virtue of being online. And I still have to go to the Google Reader site.
Admittedly, I'm not a hardcore user. There's only a handful of sites to which I'm truly devoted. And I suppose I could see how this could be very useful to someone whose job requires them to be monitoring a large number of sites. So that English teacher who gives her students the assignment of starting a blog and then needs to be checking all of them--for her, a good thing indeed.
For me, a little baffling. But I will keep fooling around with it and update here if my initial impression changes.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Reflections on Library 2.0
First off, I'm a big fan of Stephen Abram. I've seen him speak a few times and even had a coffee klatch with him after he spoke at my workplace (this is the equivalent of librarian name-dropping). He's an exciting, excited guy. So I love his schtick on Library 2.0 and his enthusiasm for Millenials. His message is that librarians need to be engaged in life and excited about life, which should then naturally translate into being jazzed about these new Web 2.0 technologies. And he has also straight out said that foot-dragging librarians should do the rest of us a favor and get the heck out of the profession. He doesn't mince words, this guy, and I admire that. And there's John Blyberg http://www.blyberg.net/2006/01/09/11-reasons-why-library-20-exists-and-matters/ who claims it's out-and-out revolutionary. Unlike Blyberg, I hesitate to refer to the concept of Library 2.0 as "a movement". That just seems grandiose to me.
Then you have the backlash against Library 2.0. A contingent that grumbles that this is just fancy-pants wordsmithing of what we've always done. That just throwing tech at a library doesn't make it better. And who has the time for this anyway?
I'm choosing to take what I think is the pragmatic view. I don't think the Library 2.0 vision is revolutionary. It's simply evolutionary. It's the logical next step. It IS exciting, but I don't think all librarians should automatically be forced to wear those cool space suits from the movie Tron just yet. (Does anyone else remember that movie?) Clearly (and to his credit, Blyberg addresses this) if your library serves, say, a largely rural population that does not use or have access to computers then it is nonsensical to dump a lot of time and resources into a Library 2.0 initiative. You need be able to afford to put gas into the bookmobile, after all. Common sense, people. But, increasingly, people are using these technologies and it behooves us, as a profession, to be early adopters. It is just a fact of life that we need to learn the stuff. Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.
Then you have the backlash against Library 2.0. A contingent that grumbles that this is just fancy-pants wordsmithing of what we've always done. That just throwing tech at a library doesn't make it better. And who has the time for this anyway?
I'm choosing to take what I think is the pragmatic view. I don't think the Library 2.0 vision is revolutionary. It's simply evolutionary. It's the logical next step. It IS exciting, but I don't think all librarians should automatically be forced to wear those cool space suits from the movie Tron just yet. (Does anyone else remember that movie?) Clearly (and to his credit, Blyberg addresses this) if your library serves, say, a largely rural population that does not use or have access to computers then it is nonsensical to dump a lot of time and resources into a Library 2.0 initiative. You need be able to afford to put gas into the bookmobile, after all. Common sense, people. But, increasingly, people are using these technologies and it behooves us, as a profession, to be early adopters. It is just a fact of life that we need to learn the stuff. Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
