Well this is it, my first post that lacks a review of a reading for my 555 class. I finished the class last week, and am pretty darn excited about it, so far 3 classes down and I still have a 4.0! So I don't have anything exciting or witty to say, but I really want to try and post about once a week, or at the very least after something exciting has happened. As luck would have it for this week, it is my first post in a week, and exciting things have happened recently!
This past week my mom and sister came to visit. I am not at the point yet where i am ready to upload pictures onto this blog, but suffice it to say that we had a lot of fun. We took a Segway tour of the city, which while very fun can be hard on the old legs. For anyone out there interested I would highly recommend the Memorial Highlights Tour through segsinthecity (www.segsinthecity.com). It is only 45 bucks, and an hour and a half long (trust me when I say that is the longest you want to stand on a segway). It was very hot, but the guy who gave the tour had a lot of information to share, and we traveled completely around the tidal basin here in the city. After that we went to the POV at the newly named W Hotel. Way too hot to do that, pretty views but I had sweat in places I would rather not think about anymore! I love having my family visit. They are incredibly important to me, and I have found that the older I get the better my relationship with my mom and sisters has become. That is such a joy to me, and it is beyond difficult to watch them when they leave. I am excited to see them again for a wedding though here in a few weeks.
Then Dan and I traveled up to New Jersey for Joan and Nathan (Shifflet)'s wedding. While there we stayed with Dan's Aunt Nancy, and saw Amy, Melissa, Brian, William, and all of Dan's immediate family. It was a nice weekend, though I was over emotional much of the time. Why is it that I cry like a baby about dogs in cages, and at other people's weddings, but was stone faced at my own wedding and so logical in my every day work?! We also visited Ellie (Dan's step-grandmother) this past weekend. She has been in the hospital now for a month. I must say, she has convinced me very much in the power of prayer. 2 weeks ago they were preparing for her death within a few hours, and suddenly she had a complete turn around, her blood pressure stabilized, she is breathing on her own, infections are healing themselves! It is incredible, note to self those Hail Mary's really do work! Overall it was a nice weekend, but I fear sometimes that Dan and I are getting too used to being on our own. We were ready for our normal schedule, and our own bed!
This is the last week I have before AC training starts, which of course bleeds right into RA training, and opening, and the first six weeks. Before I know it it will be December. But I don't want to get too ahead of myself, for now I want to stay positive and enjoy the moment. I have some exciting plans for NN2 this upcoming year, and lots of things to get ready!
So with that, I supposed I will end this post. I doubt many will read it, but hopefully this will be a good resource for me (as a future librarian) to refer back to moments in my life, so I can remember things I am sure I will soon forget. For now, toodles!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Closing your Curtains… and other ways to protect your privacy!
Coombs, Karen (2005) Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries. Computers in Libraries. V 25 No. 6.
I can’t believe this week is already here, the last week of LSC 555. I still couldn’t tell you all I have learned in this class, but my technology skills have definitely improved! The articles this week were focused on the Web, again. They focused specifically on Web privacy. The first article I read was written by an electronic services librarian at SUNY. The focus of this paper was to analyze what information libraries should protect. During the process of “going digital” at the SUNY libraries the author claims to have learned five things. These things are: that a privacy policy is more important than a written document, data can be stored in places most don’t think of, purging of user data can affect the library’s ability to function, the places user data is stored are not always controlled by the library, and finally privacy policies are constantly changing things. What a fascinating experience this must have been for this librarian! To be perfectly honest the thought of privacy being an expectation while being in a public library was absolutely beyond me! I am not necessarily sure I agree that privacy should be an expectation, but regardless this article provided a wealth of information on the importance of privacy in libraries.
There were a number of things that stood out to me while reading this article. I think the first thing that struck me was that the ALA actually has recommendations for the protection of user privacy. These recommendations are limiting the degree to which personally identifiable information is monitored, collected, disclosed and distributed. They also recommend that you avoid creating unnecessary records (a fairly vague direction in my personal opinion), as well as avoid retaining records that are not needed for efficient operation of the library (which again in my opinion goes against what the library stands for in general). Finally they suggest that libraries avoid practices and procedures that place personally identifiable information in public view. I don’t in any way mean to sound trite, but these are pretty vague directions, and in some ways seem to contradict what libraries stand for in the first place. I discussed this a bit in my research paper on wikis, how digital diaries (as they have been described) are works that should be saved and recorded. The ALA seems to disagree. So then, my question based on this article is this: how much privacy do people really deserve to expect when using a publicly sponsored service?
Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
In a really neat article on the scholar project recently taken on by Google, Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) discusses the pros and cons of Google’s plans to digitize millions of copyrighted books. In fact, the author goes so far as to suggest that Google’s project may well bring about the most disruptive copyright battle since the invention of sound recording technology. I really found this article interesting, and my husband (a phd computer science student was equally interested). Essentially this author argues that the Google Library Project will force a judge to make a sweeping decision regarding copyright law, that will not only adversely affect the Library project, but the “free culture” movement as well.
I won’t lie, this was a long article to read, it threw a lot of cases at the reader, and though using simple language was a bit complex at times to follow. The things that stood out to me the most about this article was the author’s concern that something considered a “flagship” freedom of information project, will actually destroy the potential for free information in the future. Essentially, Google may ruin things for everyone else, because of how legislators will react. I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, but look forward to researching the problems more, so I can best form an opinion. My question as a result of reading this article is: Did we really see such sweeping litigation as a result of the Napster fallout, that we have evidence to actually believe that there will be adverse effects to this project?
I can’t believe this week is already here, the last week of LSC 555. I still couldn’t tell you all I have learned in this class, but my technology skills have definitely improved! The articles this week were focused on the Web, again. They focused specifically on Web privacy. The first article I read was written by an electronic services librarian at SUNY. The focus of this paper was to analyze what information libraries should protect. During the process of “going digital” at the SUNY libraries the author claims to have learned five things. These things are: that a privacy policy is more important than a written document, data can be stored in places most don’t think of, purging of user data can affect the library’s ability to function, the places user data is stored are not always controlled by the library, and finally privacy policies are constantly changing things. What a fascinating experience this must have been for this librarian! To be perfectly honest the thought of privacy being an expectation while being in a public library was absolutely beyond me! I am not necessarily sure I agree that privacy should be an expectation, but regardless this article provided a wealth of information on the importance of privacy in libraries.
There were a number of things that stood out to me while reading this article. I think the first thing that struck me was that the ALA actually has recommendations for the protection of user privacy. These recommendations are limiting the degree to which personally identifiable information is monitored, collected, disclosed and distributed. They also recommend that you avoid creating unnecessary records (a fairly vague direction in my personal opinion), as well as avoid retaining records that are not needed for efficient operation of the library (which again in my opinion goes against what the library stands for in general). Finally they suggest that libraries avoid practices and procedures that place personally identifiable information in public view. I don’t in any way mean to sound trite, but these are pretty vague directions, and in some ways seem to contradict what libraries stand for in the first place. I discussed this a bit in my research paper on wikis, how digital diaries (as they have been described) are works that should be saved and recorded. The ALA seems to disagree. So then, my question based on this article is this: how much privacy do people really deserve to expect when using a publicly sponsored service?
Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
In a really neat article on the scholar project recently taken on by Google, Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) discusses the pros and cons of Google’s plans to digitize millions of copyrighted books. In fact, the author goes so far as to suggest that Google’s project may well bring about the most disruptive copyright battle since the invention of sound recording technology. I really found this article interesting, and my husband (a phd computer science student was equally interested). Essentially this author argues that the Google Library Project will force a judge to make a sweeping decision regarding copyright law, that will not only adversely affect the Library project, but the “free culture” movement as well.
I won’t lie, this was a long article to read, it threw a lot of cases at the reader, and though using simple language was a bit complex at times to follow. The things that stood out to me the most about this article was the author’s concern that something considered a “flagship” freedom of information project, will actually destroy the potential for free information in the future. Essentially, Google may ruin things for everyone else, because of how legislators will react. I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, but look forward to researching the problems more, so I can best form an opinion. My question as a result of reading this article is: Did we really see such sweeping litigation as a result of the Napster fallout, that we have evidence to actually believe that there will be adverse effects to this project?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Ch, Ch, Ch, Changes!
Tolliver et al. (2005). Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned. OCLC Systems & Services. 21(3). Pp. 156-166.
I must admit, I actually enjoyed the readings this week. After working so hard on the web page assignment, I have a new profound respect for the creation and upkeep of websites! The smallest detail, like a missing < or an ill placed “, can profoundly change what end users see! The two articles this week focused on web design, and how that impacts end users. In a really interesting article, though a bit over-detailed for my taste, Tolliver, Edwards, Fisher, Haines, Krolikowski and Price (2005), discuss the experience one library had with employing a usability expert during a redesigning of their academic library website. The authors focus specifically on what they learned through that process, including who the experts on end-users were, and what role an outside expert could play in the process of redevelopment.
There were a number of things that stood out to me in the reading of this article. By far one of the most important was the fact that during their study, the authors found that librarians were much more expert in understanding online content, and end user needs, over the usability consultant. Furthermore, I thought it was very interesting that the authors asserted the need for a collaborative team. This is so vitally important in a library environment, especially where technology is becoming such a prevalent part of the library! But, from my conversations with librarians, collaboration with outside resources is still not happening as consistently as it could! Those resources can provide knowledge and experience from beyond the library, that may put libraries on the cutting edge of technology use, and not far behind! The question I left with from this article is this: As librarians we need to think outside the box, what other experts could we bring into the library that would benefit our users? Might an expert in finances, or recycling, or meditation benefit our users just as much as an expert on website design?
McGillis, L. &Toms, EG. (2001). Usability of the Academic Library Web Site: Implications for Design. College and Research Libraries. Vol iss:4.
The second article this week focused even more on a lot of the topics we have discussed in class, regarding end users, and the development of technology around end users. In this article by McGillis and Toms (2001), a study was conducted to assess the usability of an academic library Web site and to better understand how faculty and students complete typical tasks by using that site. End users have incredibly high expectations for the functionality of library websites, having grown up in the age of amazon.com and google. In this article the authors concluded, after having studied 33 typical users’ interactions with the site, that library websites fail to take into account how people approach questions, and information. Libraries continue to focus on their traditional structures, which is not intuitive at all for the end user of today.
This article was actually really interesting, and not nearly as long winded as the previous article I read for this week. Not a whole lot actually stood out to me in the article however, I felt like a lot of the points discussed are well known, and have been discussed a lot during our class time! How information is categorized on library websites is not remotely intuitive for users, typically they create a directory style listing of options, but don’t provide any resources on what to do with those options. They are not educating! I agree very much with the final sentence of the paper, where the authors state that “We must take a systematic, user-centered approach to their development.” That is true, and we must consider that our users need to be educated, as well as provided with proper tools. I am in no way implying that we should change everything about the library system, I just think that we need to find a way to reeducate our users! My question from this article is: how can we train librarians to be educators, how can that become a vital part of their job description, and what kinds of education need to occur for the end user to be successful?
I must admit, I actually enjoyed the readings this week. After working so hard on the web page assignment, I have a new profound respect for the creation and upkeep of websites! The smallest detail, like a missing < or an ill placed “, can profoundly change what end users see! The two articles this week focused on web design, and how that impacts end users. In a really interesting article, though a bit over-detailed for my taste, Tolliver, Edwards, Fisher, Haines, Krolikowski and Price (2005), discuss the experience one library had with employing a usability expert during a redesigning of their academic library website. The authors focus specifically on what they learned through that process, including who the experts on end-users were, and what role an outside expert could play in the process of redevelopment.
There were a number of things that stood out to me in the reading of this article. By far one of the most important was the fact that during their study, the authors found that librarians were much more expert in understanding online content, and end user needs, over the usability consultant. Furthermore, I thought it was very interesting that the authors asserted the need for a collaborative team. This is so vitally important in a library environment, especially where technology is becoming such a prevalent part of the library! But, from my conversations with librarians, collaboration with outside resources is still not happening as consistently as it could! Those resources can provide knowledge and experience from beyond the library, that may put libraries on the cutting edge of technology use, and not far behind! The question I left with from this article is this: As librarians we need to think outside the box, what other experts could we bring into the library that would benefit our users? Might an expert in finances, or recycling, or meditation benefit our users just as much as an expert on website design?
McGillis, L. &Toms, EG. (2001). Usability of the Academic Library Web Site: Implications for Design. College and Research Libraries. Vol iss:4.
The second article this week focused even more on a lot of the topics we have discussed in class, regarding end users, and the development of technology around end users. In this article by McGillis and Toms (2001), a study was conducted to assess the usability of an academic library Web site and to better understand how faculty and students complete typical tasks by using that site. End users have incredibly high expectations for the functionality of library websites, having grown up in the age of amazon.com and google. In this article the authors concluded, after having studied 33 typical users’ interactions with the site, that library websites fail to take into account how people approach questions, and information. Libraries continue to focus on their traditional structures, which is not intuitive at all for the end user of today.
This article was actually really interesting, and not nearly as long winded as the previous article I read for this week. Not a whole lot actually stood out to me in the article however, I felt like a lot of the points discussed are well known, and have been discussed a lot during our class time! How information is categorized on library websites is not remotely intuitive for users, typically they create a directory style listing of options, but don’t provide any resources on what to do with those options. They are not educating! I agree very much with the final sentence of the paper, where the authors state that “We must take a systematic, user-centered approach to their development.” That is true, and we must consider that our users need to be educated, as well as provided with proper tools. I am in no way implying that we should change everything about the library system, I just think that we need to find a way to reeducate our users! My question from this article is: how can we train librarians to be educators, how can that become a vital part of their job description, and what kinds of education need to occur for the end user to be successful?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Web Part Two, We Love You?!
Paul Anderson (2007). “All that Glisters Is Not Gold-Web 2.0 and the Librarian” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol 39, No. 4, 195-198.
In a fascinating editorial on Web 2.0, Paul Anderson delves into the history of what Web 2.0 is, and where it is going. Web 2.0 is a term coined by Dale Dougherty a Vice President of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Rather than the term insinuating that there was a whole new revolution in the web, Mr. Doughtery and his company was seeking to show that despite the dot-com bust, the web was still relevant and stronger than ever. Mr. Anderson went on to discuss in his article there should be a framework set up to analyze web 2.0 and the roles that it could play. This framework focused on three different items that make up the backbone of web 2.0, first the “surface” applications (i.e. blogs, wikis, etc), then the “six big ideas” as identified in Tim O’Reilly’s paper, and finally the web technologies and standards (i.e. XML). The second component of this paper focused on the relationship between web 2.0 and the library. Anderson argues that there is no definition for what Library 2.0 is, but believes that it is high time for librarians to start harnessing the power of web 2.0, and provide feedback on how to make the framework even stronger. Which I tend to agree with!
I will admit right now at the beginning of my feedback, that I am very behind the times in understanding the forward movement of the web. This concept of Web 2.0, I really didn’t get. I mean, I guess I didn’t understand how there could be a revolution in the web, I thought it just existed and kept reinventing itself. Needless to say, this article was very helpful to me, in understanding what the term meant, and how it came to being. There were a couple of things that stood out to me in this article, and were helpful in the research I needed for my paper. I really appreciated the information provided on this history of Web 2.0, it helped me to see that those “dot-coms” that survived the 1990s made the web stronger and more relevant. The other component of the article that stood out to me was the idea that librarians need to play a role in the development of Web 2.0. I sincerely agree. Librarians are the ultimate resource in working with people, they must know from a variety of perspectives what the end user is looking for, and can provide valuable input in helping to develop practices for new Web 2.0, and Library Web 2.0 services. The question that I come to then is what role have librarians played thus far in the development of Web 2.0, and has their input actually been helpful?
Maness, J. (2006). “Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries.” Webology, 3(2), Article 25.
While I acknowledge that all of the articles for this week had a similar theme, clearly around Web 2.0, I don’t know if I could have chosen a better set of two articles to read, and the order with which I read them. This second article was almost exclusively about the concept of Library 2.0, this idea was introduced in my last article. Their purpose in writing this piece was an attempt to resolve some of the controversy about what Library 2.0 is. The authors here suggest that Library 2.0 is a term used to describe the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections. They believe that Library 2.0 has four essential elements: being user centered, providing a multi-media experience, being socially rich, and being communally innovative. The article goes on to detail different technologies that are already present in libraries, though they might be considered from Web 1.0. These technologies include synchronous messaging, streaming media, blogs and wikis and most importantly social networks. In conclusion the authors restate their believe that Library 2.0, is really a perfect marriage with Web 2.0, and that it is now the role of librarians to enable their users to share information, create online library communities, and focus on finding rather than searching.
I have to say this article was very helpful in my understanding of Library 2.0. It helped to define Library 2.0, and applies the idea of Web 2.0 to libraries. In all honesty the two ideas that stood out most to me were the concept of IM in the libraries, and enablement. Enablement is exactly what being a librarian is about, and by using the concepts presented in Web 2.0, librarians can help to create a community of users online. Librarians can encourage user created content, and cataloging, the web itself can become a whole new library not previously envisioned. This process has already started through the use of instant messaging with librarians. I love the idea that somehow in the future a librarian will be able to see that I am struggling in my online search in the OPAC and will be able to jump in and offer assistance, from afar! My question then, based on all this information, is how do we help people to redefine what libraries are, and what role will we play as librarians? Furthermore, what type of virtual set up can we create to have a library in a virtual world, and is that even necessary?
In a fascinating editorial on Web 2.0, Paul Anderson delves into the history of what Web 2.0 is, and where it is going. Web 2.0 is a term coined by Dale Dougherty a Vice President of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Rather than the term insinuating that there was a whole new revolution in the web, Mr. Doughtery and his company was seeking to show that despite the dot-com bust, the web was still relevant and stronger than ever. Mr. Anderson went on to discuss in his article there should be a framework set up to analyze web 2.0 and the roles that it could play. This framework focused on three different items that make up the backbone of web 2.0, first the “surface” applications (i.e. blogs, wikis, etc), then the “six big ideas” as identified in Tim O’Reilly’s paper, and finally the web technologies and standards (i.e. XML). The second component of this paper focused on the relationship between web 2.0 and the library. Anderson argues that there is no definition for what Library 2.0 is, but believes that it is high time for librarians to start harnessing the power of web 2.0, and provide feedback on how to make the framework even stronger. Which I tend to agree with!
I will admit right now at the beginning of my feedback, that I am very behind the times in understanding the forward movement of the web. This concept of Web 2.0, I really didn’t get. I mean, I guess I didn’t understand how there could be a revolution in the web, I thought it just existed and kept reinventing itself. Needless to say, this article was very helpful to me, in understanding what the term meant, and how it came to being. There were a couple of things that stood out to me in this article, and were helpful in the research I needed for my paper. I really appreciated the information provided on this history of Web 2.0, it helped me to see that those “dot-coms” that survived the 1990s made the web stronger and more relevant. The other component of the article that stood out to me was the idea that librarians need to play a role in the development of Web 2.0. I sincerely agree. Librarians are the ultimate resource in working with people, they must know from a variety of perspectives what the end user is looking for, and can provide valuable input in helping to develop practices for new Web 2.0, and Library Web 2.0 services. The question that I come to then is what role have librarians played thus far in the development of Web 2.0, and has their input actually been helpful?
Maness, J. (2006). “Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries.” Webology, 3(2), Article 25.
While I acknowledge that all of the articles for this week had a similar theme, clearly around Web 2.0, I don’t know if I could have chosen a better set of two articles to read, and the order with which I read them. This second article was almost exclusively about the concept of Library 2.0, this idea was introduced in my last article. Their purpose in writing this piece was an attempt to resolve some of the controversy about what Library 2.0 is. The authors here suggest that Library 2.0 is a term used to describe the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections. They believe that Library 2.0 has four essential elements: being user centered, providing a multi-media experience, being socially rich, and being communally innovative. The article goes on to detail different technologies that are already present in libraries, though they might be considered from Web 1.0. These technologies include synchronous messaging, streaming media, blogs and wikis and most importantly social networks. In conclusion the authors restate their believe that Library 2.0, is really a perfect marriage with Web 2.0, and that it is now the role of librarians to enable their users to share information, create online library communities, and focus on finding rather than searching.
I have to say this article was very helpful in my understanding of Library 2.0. It helped to define Library 2.0, and applies the idea of Web 2.0 to libraries. In all honesty the two ideas that stood out most to me were the concept of IM in the libraries, and enablement. Enablement is exactly what being a librarian is about, and by using the concepts presented in Web 2.0, librarians can help to create a community of users online. Librarians can encourage user created content, and cataloging, the web itself can become a whole new library not previously envisioned. This process has already started through the use of instant messaging with librarians. I love the idea that somehow in the future a librarian will be able to see that I am struggling in my online search in the OPAC and will be able to jump in and offer assistance, from afar! My question then, based on all this information, is how do we help people to redefine what libraries are, and what role will we play as librarians? Furthermore, what type of virtual set up can we create to have a library in a virtual world, and is that even necessary?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
WTH is up with the ILS?
M. Breeding (2005). “Re-Integrating the integrated library system” Computers in Libraries: 25(25).
The articles this week were primarily focused on the Integrated Library System, and all the benefits and drawbacks included in the system. In his article on reintegrating the ILS, Marshall Breeding discusses the idea that Integrated Library Systems have been left behind, as new technologies have been created in the past decade. The drawback of ILSs being left behind, Breeding argues, is that instead of there being one comprehensive system that libraries can utilize for search and find, there are a number of systems making search and find more complicated. Breeding also discusses how it came to be that libraries are in such a situation, and what is stopping integration from happening. He concludes is article with sentiments on solutions for the development of one tightly woven ILS, and believe that eventually add-ons and ILS will become one and provide resources and information in a “one-stop shop” format.
I personally found this article to be very interesting. Breeding is so very right, it is almost as though we are making our interactions with library systems even more complicated than they need to be, and let’s be honest the systems are already pretty hard to understand! While it is difficult because of money and resources, libraries need to not be afraid to throw out the books and work to create a system that is a one stop shop for end users. I believe it is possible, and will bring users back to the library from the “Google escape hatch.” As I read through this article, the question that occurred to me was: how will open source computing affect the systems that libraries have in place, could open sourcing be the solution that libraries have been looking for?
M. Deddisns (2002). “Overview of ILS” EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
In their article on Integrated Library Systems, the Evolving Technologies Committee of EDUCAUSE argues that today’s ILS is a multi0function web-based content form. That while the system may have been built on a standard relational database structure, it has changed with the times and provides must better access to information than web-based search engines. The article goes on to discuss in brief, three different vendor systems and their ILS offerings. The first one is from the Endeavor Information system, while they glorify their products (as any good marketing campaign should), they do offer to provide libraries at any point in their development as “digital libraries” with three ENCompas Solutions: Resource Access, Digital Collections and ENCompass. They also review Innovative Interfaces, Inc, and focus on the XML harvester, and a Metadata builder. Finally, they provide a brief overview of SIRSI, and their solutions for technology issues. Essentially this article stated that the ILS has long provided people with indexed solutions for searching, and is still better than web-based searches, and management of digital assets will help librarians and IT professionals make the library a better place.
What a drastic difference between two articles! This article spoke to me in a very different way than Breeding’s article. What stood out to me the most was two things. First, I noticed the question included in the conclusion, on whether to consider and ILS as a digital asset management system or to venture into more generalized vendor systems. I think this is an excellent question, and one I would like Breeding to have asked as well in his article. The other thing that stood out to me, and has become my discussion question is that the article argues that Integrated Library Systems continue to do what has always been the critical value of libraries. They provide access to large amounts of information and enhance access through drill-down organized indexing. My question then, is; do people want indexing in that format any longer? Or are the too “googleized” to have a preference
The articles this week were primarily focused on the Integrated Library System, and all the benefits and drawbacks included in the system. In his article on reintegrating the ILS, Marshall Breeding discusses the idea that Integrated Library Systems have been left behind, as new technologies have been created in the past decade. The drawback of ILSs being left behind, Breeding argues, is that instead of there being one comprehensive system that libraries can utilize for search and find, there are a number of systems making search and find more complicated. Breeding also discusses how it came to be that libraries are in such a situation, and what is stopping integration from happening. He concludes is article with sentiments on solutions for the development of one tightly woven ILS, and believe that eventually add-ons and ILS will become one and provide resources and information in a “one-stop shop” format.
I personally found this article to be very interesting. Breeding is so very right, it is almost as though we are making our interactions with library systems even more complicated than they need to be, and let’s be honest the systems are already pretty hard to understand! While it is difficult because of money and resources, libraries need to not be afraid to throw out the books and work to create a system that is a one stop shop for end users. I believe it is possible, and will bring users back to the library from the “Google escape hatch.” As I read through this article, the question that occurred to me was: how will open source computing affect the systems that libraries have in place, could open sourcing be the solution that libraries have been looking for?
M. Deddisns (2002). “Overview of ILS” EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
In their article on Integrated Library Systems, the Evolving Technologies Committee of EDUCAUSE argues that today’s ILS is a multi0function web-based content form. That while the system may have been built on a standard relational database structure, it has changed with the times and provides must better access to information than web-based search engines. The article goes on to discuss in brief, three different vendor systems and their ILS offerings. The first one is from the Endeavor Information system, while they glorify their products (as any good marketing campaign should), they do offer to provide libraries at any point in their development as “digital libraries” with three ENCompas Solutions: Resource Access, Digital Collections and ENCompass. They also review Innovative Interfaces, Inc, and focus on the XML harvester, and a Metadata builder. Finally, they provide a brief overview of SIRSI, and their solutions for technology issues. Essentially this article stated that the ILS has long provided people with indexed solutions for searching, and is still better than web-based searches, and management of digital assets will help librarians and IT professionals make the library a better place.
What a drastic difference between two articles! This article spoke to me in a very different way than Breeding’s article. What stood out to me the most was two things. First, I noticed the question included in the conclusion, on whether to consider and ILS as a digital asset management system or to venture into more generalized vendor systems. I think this is an excellent question, and one I would like Breeding to have asked as well in his article. The other thing that stood out to me, and has become my discussion question is that the article argues that Integrated Library Systems continue to do what has always been the critical value of libraries. They provide access to large amounts of information and enhance access through drill-down organized indexing. My question then, is; do people want indexing in that format any longer? Or are the too “googleized” to have a preference
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Fetch Booboo, Fetch!
K. Antelman, E. Lynema, A.K. Pace (2006). “Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog.” Information Technology & Libraries, 25:3. 128-139.
In their article on North Carolina State University’s purchase and implementation of the Endeca Information Access Platform, Antelman, Lynema and Pace (2006) discuss the history of library catalogs, and how North Carolina State University is leading the way towards a third generation of card catalogs. Historically, online catalogs developed from the physical card catalog system, and thus provided similar access points as the card catalog in the first generation of catalogs, developed in the 1960s and 1970s. In the second generation of catalogs, keyword searches became more popular, and provided a new ease of use not seen before. The authors of this article discuss in detail the implementation of the Endeca Information Access Platform at North Carolina State University. This system has a number of 3rd generation catalog features, including related record search and browse and integration of keyword, controlled vocabulary, and classification-based approaches,” though it is clear that there is still a distance to go before online catalogs like this can be end-user focused.
There were a couple of things that really stood out to me while reading this article, including how quickly the NCSU team was able to implement Endeca, how intentional they were in modifying the platform to their own language, and style, and the assessment that they conducted constantly though the course of implementation. I was struck by how the team started with five outcomes they wanted to achieve, and were intentional in assessing those outcomes over the course of several months after implementation. I would l have liked, in this article, to see more comparison to the platforms used by large book changes, like Barnes and Noble, or Borders. I believe those systems are what end-users are very comfortable with, and I would have liked to have seen how the Endeca platform held up against those systems. This leads me to my question: What assessments have been done on the platforms used by large booksellers, should those platforms be implemented in libraries, what unintentional weaknesses would that present?
C.N. Mooers (1960). “Mooers’ Law or, Why Some Retrival Systems Are Used and Others Are Not.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1996 vol: 23 iss:1
What a fascinating article! Rather, what fascinating remarks by Mr. Mooers! I vehemently disagree with his statements in current every day society, but I am getting ahead of myself. First let me summarize what Mr. Mooers argued in his remarks during a panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the American Documentation Institute at Lehigh University in 1959. Mr. Mooers stated that people will avoid using a retrieval system (specifically in Libraries) when it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to having information than to not have it. He believes this statement to be true, because in practice librarians have found that in many situations retrieval systems that are technically poor see a lot more use than other systems which are technically superior.
While I do understand Mr. Mooers point of view, I can’t begin to find it relevant in today’s society. Children today are being born into a society where they are trained from birth to filter the plethora of information thrown at them from every angle possible. I believe the millennials of today are rather more comfortable with too much information. Take for example the fact that there are so many search engines available, google, yahoo, bing, and then tell me that people today are not more comfortable with an overabundance of information. Furthermore, the first article for this assignment Antelman, Lynema and Pace (2006), argue that many people want to believe in serendipity when picking books, Endeca’s platform allows users to see other items that may be of interest to the searcher, again an overabundance of information for the user, and something they prefer. Finally, I look to a number of the social networking site available to the general population, where we are constantly fed updates on what others are doing, this to me clearly states that while Mooers’ Law may have been relevant in the 1950s, it is no longer relevant in today’s society. What I will agree with is that people will always seek the least painful and troublesome route to get to an end result, but most would not classify too much information as either painful or troublesome. My discussion question for this article would be how can we make library card catalogs both easy to use and full of information, does it mean that we should look to commercial sites for our own development, or should we create something using a consortium of librarians?
In their article on North Carolina State University’s purchase and implementation of the Endeca Information Access Platform, Antelman, Lynema and Pace (2006) discuss the history of library catalogs, and how North Carolina State University is leading the way towards a third generation of card catalogs. Historically, online catalogs developed from the physical card catalog system, and thus provided similar access points as the card catalog in the first generation of catalogs, developed in the 1960s and 1970s. In the second generation of catalogs, keyword searches became more popular, and provided a new ease of use not seen before. The authors of this article discuss in detail the implementation of the Endeca Information Access Platform at North Carolina State University. This system has a number of 3rd generation catalog features, including related record search and browse and integration of keyword, controlled vocabulary, and classification-based approaches,” though it is clear that there is still a distance to go before online catalogs like this can be end-user focused.
There were a couple of things that really stood out to me while reading this article, including how quickly the NCSU team was able to implement Endeca, how intentional they were in modifying the platform to their own language, and style, and the assessment that they conducted constantly though the course of implementation. I was struck by how the team started with five outcomes they wanted to achieve, and were intentional in assessing those outcomes over the course of several months after implementation. I would l have liked, in this article, to see more comparison to the platforms used by large book changes, like Barnes and Noble, or Borders. I believe those systems are what end-users are very comfortable with, and I would have liked to have seen how the Endeca platform held up against those systems. This leads me to my question: What assessments have been done on the platforms used by large booksellers, should those platforms be implemented in libraries, what unintentional weaknesses would that present?
C.N. Mooers (1960). “Mooers’ Law or, Why Some Retrival Systems Are Used and Others Are Not.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1996 vol: 23 iss:1
What a fascinating article! Rather, what fascinating remarks by Mr. Mooers! I vehemently disagree with his statements in current every day society, but I am getting ahead of myself. First let me summarize what Mr. Mooers argued in his remarks during a panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the American Documentation Institute at Lehigh University in 1959. Mr. Mooers stated that people will avoid using a retrieval system (specifically in Libraries) when it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to having information than to not have it. He believes this statement to be true, because in practice librarians have found that in many situations retrieval systems that are technically poor see a lot more use than other systems which are technically superior.
While I do understand Mr. Mooers point of view, I can’t begin to find it relevant in today’s society. Children today are being born into a society where they are trained from birth to filter the plethora of information thrown at them from every angle possible. I believe the millennials of today are rather more comfortable with too much information. Take for example the fact that there are so many search engines available, google, yahoo, bing, and then tell me that people today are not more comfortable with an overabundance of information. Furthermore, the first article for this assignment Antelman, Lynema and Pace (2006), argue that many people want to believe in serendipity when picking books, Endeca’s platform allows users to see other items that may be of interest to the searcher, again an overabundance of information for the user, and something they prefer. Finally, I look to a number of the social networking site available to the general population, where we are constantly fed updates on what others are doing, this to me clearly states that while Mooers’ Law may have been relevant in the 1950s, it is no longer relevant in today’s society. What I will agree with is that people will always seek the least painful and troublesome route to get to an end result, but most would not classify too much information as either painful or troublesome. My discussion question for this article would be how can we make library card catalogs both easy to use and full of information, does it mean that we should look to commercial sites for our own development, or should we create something using a consortium of librarians?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Technology, historically speaking..
I have never really written a blog before, I have long suffered under the notion that I am not witty enough to have created something that others will want to read. This blog, of course, is not for personal pleasure, but rather is helping me as I work my way through my information systems course in the School of Library Science. I will include, on a weekly basis, a brief synopsis of the articles we have read for class, and of course what I took away from the experience of reading those articles. Lastly, I hope to include a solid discussion question that I can bring up during class, and will secure me a solid grade for this summer session! So here it goes…
Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Ch.1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. In Library Information Systems, pp, 3-12.
In the first chapter of Kochtanel and Matthews’ book we are provided with a structured overview of the origins and evolution of Library Information Systems from the first punch card systems in Texas and Missouri to the detailed digital landscape that users work with today in libraries across the country. Libraries have long been on the cutting edge of technology, forced into such a role to initially streamline processes that already existed within libraries (i.e. circulation and cataloging), and currently to provide end users with greater access to resources and materials. When libraries began working with technology in the 1960s, the utilized large mainframe computers that were both expensive and consumed great amounts of space, with the advent of minicomputers in the mid-60s, more libraries were able to access technology, and further streamline their processes. Most recently, personal computers (or PCs), have provide users with unprecedented access to information, and forced library information systems to analyze what their purpose is.
For me personally, this was an incredibly helpful chapter to read! While I have a very base understanding of computer systems in general, I found the organization of this information was useful. I appreciated the description of the different acronym terms that I have come to know well during my time in SLIS, as well as the historical overview of the role that technology has been able to play through the evolution of libraries in America. I think the greatest thing I took away from this chapter was that initially technology was introduced to the libraries to make systems that were already in place easier, but it has now morphed into a primary function of service in libraries across the country.
My discussion question at the end of this article is: how can libraries continue to adapt and stay relevant with the advent of smart phones and other super mini technology devices.
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental Scan: A repot on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
Well, it would appear that I spoke too soon, as my discussion question has found some answers in the next article we read. In his environmental scan, Hirshon discusses in detail the many technologies that libraries currently work with on a daily basis, as well as the problems that come along with working with such technology. Interestingly, Hirshon also focuses on the type of end user that libraries will be working with for the next 20 years, these are users that are tech savvy, and have grown up in a world where there has always been internet. Hirshon seems to argue very strongly that it is important that libraries and librarians themselves work hard to stay current, and adapt from just being a collection to being a service organization.
I personally found this article to be fascinating on a number of levels. The first section that caught my eye was the fact that today most libraries have access to high performance storage and computing systems, Hirshon argues that this allows us to preserve even greater amounts of archival workm at a negligible cost. While I agree, I do have to wonder what we lose in this exciting new process. The second part of this article that caught my eye was Hirshon’s argument that mobile computing will overtake personal computing. I couldn’t agree more, being a person who currently owns and Iphone, and having found myself preferring to surf the web through the phone rather than my lap top. It is important that that libraries find ways to stay current, I know the DC public library has created an app, that is widely used and keeps them current, it also puts them right back in their end users faces. The last section of this article that particularly caught my eye was that libraries might cease being a physical space, and will begin to exist more on the virtual plane. I think this is an absolutely fascinating idea, it makes me wonder if, as a librarian, I will really be sitting at home on a computer plugged into second life to answer reference questions. I think that we need to see the constantly changing technology as an exciting opportunity for us to grow and evolve, and think outside the box. I believe that the physical structure of the library is important, but that we need to rediscover what our identity is to best serve all our patrons.
The question I would like to discuss after reading this article is: How does the library stay current with technology, but still ensure that they are accessible to their older clients who may not be as comfortable with technology?
I suppose that wraps up these two articles, more to come soon! For now, toodles!
Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Ch.1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. In Library Information Systems, pp, 3-12.
In the first chapter of Kochtanel and Matthews’ book we are provided with a structured overview of the origins and evolution of Library Information Systems from the first punch card systems in Texas and Missouri to the detailed digital landscape that users work with today in libraries across the country. Libraries have long been on the cutting edge of technology, forced into such a role to initially streamline processes that already existed within libraries (i.e. circulation and cataloging), and currently to provide end users with greater access to resources and materials. When libraries began working with technology in the 1960s, the utilized large mainframe computers that were both expensive and consumed great amounts of space, with the advent of minicomputers in the mid-60s, more libraries were able to access technology, and further streamline their processes. Most recently, personal computers (or PCs), have provide users with unprecedented access to information, and forced library information systems to analyze what their purpose is.
For me personally, this was an incredibly helpful chapter to read! While I have a very base understanding of computer systems in general, I found the organization of this information was useful. I appreciated the description of the different acronym terms that I have come to know well during my time in SLIS, as well as the historical overview of the role that technology has been able to play through the evolution of libraries in America. I think the greatest thing I took away from this chapter was that initially technology was introduced to the libraries to make systems that were already in place easier, but it has now morphed into a primary function of service in libraries across the country.
My discussion question at the end of this article is: how can libraries continue to adapt and stay relevant with the advent of smart phones and other super mini technology devices.
Arnold Hirshon (2008). Environmental Scan: A repot on trends and technologies affecting libraries.
Well, it would appear that I spoke too soon, as my discussion question has found some answers in the next article we read. In his environmental scan, Hirshon discusses in detail the many technologies that libraries currently work with on a daily basis, as well as the problems that come along with working with such technology. Interestingly, Hirshon also focuses on the type of end user that libraries will be working with for the next 20 years, these are users that are tech savvy, and have grown up in a world where there has always been internet. Hirshon seems to argue very strongly that it is important that libraries and librarians themselves work hard to stay current, and adapt from just being a collection to being a service organization.
I personally found this article to be fascinating on a number of levels. The first section that caught my eye was the fact that today most libraries have access to high performance storage and computing systems, Hirshon argues that this allows us to preserve even greater amounts of archival workm at a negligible cost. While I agree, I do have to wonder what we lose in this exciting new process. The second part of this article that caught my eye was Hirshon’s argument that mobile computing will overtake personal computing. I couldn’t agree more, being a person who currently owns and Iphone, and having found myself preferring to surf the web through the phone rather than my lap top. It is important that that libraries find ways to stay current, I know the DC public library has created an app, that is widely used and keeps them current, it also puts them right back in their end users faces. The last section of this article that particularly caught my eye was that libraries might cease being a physical space, and will begin to exist more on the virtual plane. I think this is an absolutely fascinating idea, it makes me wonder if, as a librarian, I will really be sitting at home on a computer plugged into second life to answer reference questions. I think that we need to see the constantly changing technology as an exciting opportunity for us to grow and evolve, and think outside the box. I believe that the physical structure of the library is important, but that we need to rediscover what our identity is to best serve all our patrons.
The question I would like to discuss after reading this article is: How does the library stay current with technology, but still ensure that they are accessible to their older clients who may not be as comfortable with technology?
I suppose that wraps up these two articles, more to come soon! For now, toodles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)