Posting #5

Ever since the idea of iPad-toting roving reference librarians was planted in my head by a classmate in 704, I’ve had random thoughts now and then on how mobile devices open up new possibilities for libraries to add value for patrons. This week’s reading allowed me to branch out beyond those occasional thoughts or ideas, to see what’s actually going on and expand my mind to many new possibilities. For example, I had thought QR codes might be a good way to provide suggestions for similar reading material (“Like this? Try these: …”) or to let people scan codes near LC numbers to see what subjects are included in that row of materials. I was pleased to see similar ideas and so many more in the extensive list of QR possibilities in our reading. With my curiosity piqued, I looked a little further into QR codes in libraries, and found another great list of libraries using QR codes and in what capacity they’re using them: http://bit.ly/ezyfaJ. (Also, our classmate Lian did her web report on QR codes, if you haven’t checked it out.) For their use in things like user instructions or directional signs, these codes even allow for greater customization, like using different tags depending on where people are in the library. For example, one goal at a university library was to put directional codes throughout the library so users could “scan the one for law on floor 4 of the library, small staircase and it could display text saying ‘go up 2 floors, turn left and you will pass first the law journals, then law reports, then get to the books’” (http://bit.ly/eaWHde). There’s also potential to improve accessibility, like by making videos (or even just audio) that explain a sign available for those who can’t read it for any number of reasons.

However, this does bring me to a couple of concerns. Say these codes link to instructional videos on how to use library equipment. I think this is great, as some people certainly learn better by seeing something done than through written instructions on a page (again, yay, accessibility!). However, what happens when these videos include narration? Will patrons be expected to have headphones for their mobile devices or risk getting the stink eye for making noise in the library? I think that’s an unrealistic expectation, and one that would prohibit widespread adoption of many of the potential uses of QR codes and other mobile technology in the library. Thus, I think the section in Michael’s 2009 trends and technologies post that asserts libraries need to revisit their policies on mobile devices is an important step, not only since these tools are here to stay, but because they offer us new opportunities to serve our users rather than alienate them.

My other concern with many of the forms of mobile technology for the library we read about is that, while they offer great opportunities for libraries and some patrons, we must keep equity of access in mind. We can’t expect all patrons to have access to the technology needed to scan a QR code, look up catalog information from anywhere, or get mobile RSS updates from a library. Though of course mobile web use is “exploding” and more people are using cell phone communications technology than email (http://bit.ly/hjYAer), and we want to meet these users’ needs and interests, we also have to be careful to remember our other patrons who don’t have or use this technology and not let our service in those areas suffer. That said, I’m looking forward to seeing what’s to come, as I have no doubt mobile technology will continue to transform libraries in the next few years.

Posting #4

As I was preparing to write my response to this module, I was in the perfect mindset to discover the latest product announcement from Google: Gmail Motion (http://mail.google.com/mail/help/motion.html). Of course, this being April Fools’ Day, we know this product is a takeoff on recent gaming systems and users’ demands for intuitive technology rather than an actual new form of email. However, many of the selling points on Google’s fake launch page resonated with what we read about the semantic web and the future of the Internet. For example, the intro states that since the internet came around, “countless technological advancements have allowed for much more efficient human computer interaction. Why then do we continue to use outdated technology?” Seems like the main argument of many proponents of technological innovation. Even the fake testimonials, which are certainly funny on their own, actually bear striking similarities to concepts behind the next-generation Web. Take this one: ”No longer will people be required bend to the will of technology. Instead, technology will now bend to our will.” This is exactly what concepts like natural language processing seek to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been frustrated in trying to find exactly what I want when computers don’t give me the options or the interpretations I feel I need. Even most of the way through library school, I still run into difficulties in searching the Chicago Public Library catalog for certain materials because the system doesn’t work the way I want it to – and if I have these problems as an almost-librarian, I can’t imagine how irritating the system can be for others. With the increase in digital resources and digital libraries, the need for simple, user-friendly searching will only grow. With those thoughts in mind, I was amused by Google’s April Fools’ Day joke, but I also saw that it might not be as far from reality as some might expect.

That’s not to say I completely bought into everything that was included in the reading for this module right away. The semantic web and data linking seem like very lofty goals that would take a lot of work from a lot of people and companies to make possible. However, looking at what Tim Berners-Lee has launched in the past, I wouldn’t want to bet money against him. While yes, it would be more work to assign useful and relevant metadata to sites in order for Berners-Lee’s idea of the semantic web to be a reality, it might eventually be the kind of technological revolution that feeds itself. If there are enough sites out there that begin to do it to show what the potential is, the marketplace will demand that websites evolve to meet these new needs and expectations. As we’ve seen, the web is constantly evolving, and what worked as a website 10 years ago would in many cases seem laughable today. So while the idea that the web would have to be completely overhauled, page by page, to make the semantic web possible has some truth to it, given the ongoing changes and upgrades that are pervasive throughout the web, it might not be as impossible as it seems at first. Also, the more intuitive the system (which seems to be the goal as we move forward in information management), the easier it will be to see widespread adoption.

Based on the reading, what seems to me to be a major hurdle in this linked data model would be database hugging and gaining access to proprietary information. As we saw in the intellectual property module, money still seems to rule, so amassing copyrighted information could prove quite challenging. It’s all well and good to require government organizations to release data that has been paid for by tax dollars – which certainly would represent a good deal of information – but getting private companies to do the same seems unrealistic to me now. However, there is certainly hope for some information beyond government data, as the open access model is definitely gaining momentum in certain areas. For example, the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org), which aims “to increase the visibility and ease of use of open access scientific and scholarly journals thereby promoting their increased usage and impact,” currently includes 6,335 journals, up from 5,000 less than a year ago, which shows good momentum. DOAJ is a great resource for libraries, as I’m sure many of us learned early on in this program. Finding other areas in which libraries could support or offer similar value to users would tie in with the goals of this next-generation web and perhaps spread the concept of data being for everyone. In terms of a several-years-out view, I would like to remain optimistic, given all the advancement we’ve seen up to this point. I think libraries and information sources can be valuable contributors to this future as long as we recognize the potential and get on board with where technology seems to be heading. And if this means reexamining how libraries have traditionally done things, as suggested in the reading, I think libraries will have to show that they are able to evolve in order to survive. Given the opportunities that might come from interoperability and data linking, it seems like there could be great potential for librarians to help others navigate these new data relationships, helping newly focused libraries not just survive, but thrive.

Hi guys. Quick troubleshooting issue that came up for me in Exercise 7: I discovered that you can’t use target=“_blank” to open a link in a new window if you’re using XHTML Strict. For this exercise (http://www.librarelaine.com/exercise07.html), I just ended up linking in the same window, but I was originally hoping to have the picture links in the box on the left open in a new window. After I didn’t find what I was looking for online, Michael sent me a link that details a workaround (http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/standards-compliant-world), so I wanted to share it with everyone. But I’m also curious (since JavaScript scares me a bit) if anyone knows of another way to do it without taking on a new type of coding or switching to XHTML Transitional. Thanks for any thoughts!

Posting #2

I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who would argue with the notion that technology is changing librarianship. But at its root, as others have pointed out, the profession’s goals have remained the same: providing access to information. It’s just that access has become more complex. It’s not enough anymore for a library to open its doors and say, “We’re here – stop on by if you need us!” With so much competition for people’s time and attention, we need to offer broader access by taking our information to the people. One of the ideas from the reading on this topic that I liked most was the concept that “content, use and community are inseparable” (from the Smithsonian Commons Millennial video: http://www.si.edu/commons/prototype/story3/story3.html). We also need to go beyond traditional definitions of content in reaching out to our communities and defining new uses for our services.

Today, going where the people are means to go online. In a time in which more kids know how to use a smart phone than tie their shoelaces (seriously: http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/434010_kids24.html), we’re only going to continue to see rapid evolution in the number and type of sites people are using and patrons’ comfort with technology. It’s refreshing to see libraries understanding that this is an area with great potential and hiring specialists to reach out in these new areas. However, we’re reaching a point where technology has so permeated how we do business that even librarians not going into those specialized jobs must be pseudo-experts in more and more types of technology.

As I see it, there are two kinds of technology training we could receive in library school: learning to use specific new technologies; and building an understanding of how to locate and learn new technologies as they arise. The first method might prepare students to find a job right out of school, with a few handy tech skills in their back pocket to show off in interviews. However, the latter will prepare students with a mindset of constantly looking to pick up new technology that can somehow be applied to a job and used to improve the way we provide access to our patrons. Only by feeling comfortable enough with the constant influx of new technology to give something a try will we be able to keep up with the latest skills and trends throughout our careers. While this may seem easier said than done, I think one good way to do it is to incorporate technology within the curriculum throughout our MLIS program. Taking classes that teach specific technologies are great – we learn useful skills that look great on a resume and make us more comfortable with technology in general – but we could build on this even more by seeing and acting on applications of new technology all throughout our learning process. I think the comfort level that would bring could be one of the most valuable components in preparing us to meet the inevitably growing technological demands of the library job market.