— I'm Timothy. I live in Wellington, New Zealand, and I work for Victoria University's Architecture & Design Library. This is my personal journal. You'll find I'm interested in librarianship, game design, information architecture, and some other stuff. Updates? — Try the RSS.

Archive for May, 2006

13 May, 2006 Library 2.0 : Visibility

In a recent post, where I attempted to outline the term Library 2.0 and describe what it means for Library and Information Systems, I suggested that the important ideas behind L2 could be approached by focusing on three general areas. I gave these areas the keywords Visibility, Flexibility and Usability. In this post, I’d like to look at a few examples from discussions on the web which I believe speak to the first category of Visibility. The following blog posts and articles highlight quite a broad range of possibilities for using Web 2.0 technologies to aid librarians in making their services more visible, and more transparent, to their clients and to eachother.

Following the Users - Making librarians visible to users, and users visible to librarians

Recently, several librarian bloggers have devoted time to the discussion of the potential of social software such as MySpace or Facebook to connect libraries with their users - notably, the ‘web 2.0 generation’ of users. A surprisingly large number of libraries have made identities for their libraries in these social communities.

I think what is most relevant about this is a change in thinking behind it - the thought matches up with some of the theses expressed in The Cluetrain Manifesto which speak to the rise of ‘human-sounding conversations’ between people in networked markets. Putting librarians on MySpace or Facebook seems to have the potential to network libraries with their users in personal ways - letting potential users see just what the people who work in the library are all about, and give individual feedback.

I like how many of the MySpace identities attempt to personify the libraries they represent “I’m the Denver Public Library Web Site for Teens!”, however I would like to see the individual librarians themselves become more visible in the communication process. This isn’t even necessarily something that needs to be accomplished via established venues like MySpace. Even a small step such as publishing a blog on the library website with an attached RSS feed could promote visible connections between library users and librarians. An important feature to include however, in my opinion, would be to ensure that the blogging librarians present themselves on a personal and individual level. One strong feature of many companies that have launched Web 2.0 applications is that they usually have individuals who communicate with their users directly. This communication technique no doubt began as a result of the almost permanent beta-status of 2.0ish initiatives, and flows both ways allowing users to ask questions and often even collaborate over issues that the designers have not been able to solve. Meredith Farkas comments on the possible use of a MySpace profile “as a two-way communications mechanism” in her blog post on Libraries in Social Networking Software.

Brian Mathews suggests in his recent alablog.org podcast about ‘Academic Library 2.0′ that there is a lot to be gained from “going where the users are” - not forcing patrons to visit the library website, but instead encountering them in the applications they use in their everyday life. Matthews gives the example of library users adding the library reference service to their instant messenger contacts list, and how this can be a lot more flexible than requiring users to use proprietary software.

Brian goes on to speak in his podcast about how he has been working on a project using an RSS feed aggregator to monitor “almost one hundred” Georgia Tech student blogs. By setting up keyword searches of these subscribed blogs for library-related terms Brian has been filtering out moments where students express information needs. He says: “I start my day - every morning - looking at what it is that students are talking about, and probably maybe four or five times a week there’s something there that’s a genuine information need that I can help them with”. He describes this kind of interaction with clients needing to be timely, meaningful and appropriate. I found Brian Mathews’ whitepaper on his experiment, stored in Georgia Tech’s institutional repository, which outlines his exciting project in more detail.

Students who attend the kinds of institutions at which this research commentary is aimed (that is, video game and media design students), are almost certainly familiar with, or already using applications which allow aggregation and searching of content themselves. A Library supporting one these institutions could work with academic staff to facilitate interactive (two way) linkages between web-based tools that students already make use of and course content and library services. By “following the users” the library could keep the users aware of its services, become better aware of the information needs of its clients, and open up channels for valuable communication between librarians and users.

It is particularly interesting to note that some librarians have built an library in the virtual world Second Life. Second Life has often been discussed as a potential virtual sandbox for teaching and testing game development ideas. It would be easy for librarians at a particular institution to set up virtual reference services to assist students in that environment. Students usering Second Life would be able to access library resources and discuss issues with virtually embodied librarians without leaving their development environment.

Making librarians visible to eachother

The LibSuccess wiki is an excellent example of a Web 2.0 application being used by librarians to promote visibility between those in the profession. This wiki allows librarians to communicate with colleagues around the world and contribute ideas and questions to a shared knowledgebase. I think this wiki seems an especially excellent tool for someone like myself who is new to the profession. Finding that other librarians have made the effort to make themselves visible (and make their thoughts and discussions transparent on the web) to the wider community makes me feel more confident and excited about a future career in the profession. It is great to read about librarians who have been doing exciting things, or have advice to share. It’s worth pointing out that this could also potentially provide a resource for non-librarians, too - even library patrons!

Michael Casey, in another alablog podcast describes how his public branch library staff use an internal blog to communicate within the organisation. Communication flows both ‘horizontally’ - between librarians about important recent news and tasks in the library - and also ‘vertically’ to provide a space for dialogue with the library managers. Michael comments that this means managers can enter into discussions with staff directly, rather than having important issues ‘digested’ to them by middle management.

Within the library of a small private game development college, technologies such as wikis and blogs might be used to facilitate communication between what is likely to be quite a small number of technologically-proficient staff, who may not all be working in the library at the same time. Making use of an international collaborative professional and social network like the LibSuccess wiki could help library staff to remain connected with others in their profession and keep them up today with current global discussions and ideas.

12 May, 2006 What is Library 2.0?

“Not a standard but a state of mind”

Library 2.0 has been drawing a lot of attention in the past year or so on the blogs of library professionals around the globe (it’s called the Biblioblogosphere). There’s no shortage of discussion and debate out there on the Internets about the idea (or meme?) of Web 2.0 and it’s semantic offspring ‘L2′. What follows is my attempts at an introduction, and the outline of three areas I feel will make three good blog posts for discussions and examples.

Web 2.0

The meaning of Web 2.0 is somewhat ambiguous and ethereal; it is term that is usually used to evoke a series of perceived changes in the way that the world wide web operates. Tim O’Rielly suggests that “you can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core” (O’Rielly Radar, What Is Web 2.0?).

According to Wikipedia, the Web 2.0 tag can be applied to:

  1. The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming a computing platform serving web applications to end users
  2. A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and “the market as a conversation”
  3. A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture
  4. A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
  5. A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited
  6. The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005.

- Wikipedia Web 2.0

Importantly, Web 2.0 represents a shift away from software installed on individual personal computers towards applications which are entirely accessable online. Locating applications online allows for greater connectivity and flexibility for data.

Web 1.0 was the era when people could think that Netscape (a software company) was the contender for the computer industry crown; Web 2.0 is the era when people are recognizing that leadership in the computer industry has passed from traditional software companies to a new kind of internet service company. The net has replaced the PC as the platform that matters, just as the PC replaced the mainframe and minicomputer. - Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Radar, Not 2.0?)

Clearly, there’s something different about today’s web. Assigning the Web2.0 tag is an attempt to signify this difference where it is most marked.

L2 (Library 2.0)

Library 2.0 (and Librarian 2.0) emerges from information management professionals’ reactions to discussions of Web 2.0. The evolution of this more specific (library-focused) term represents their desire to apply and engage with some of the ideas, discourses and changes observed in discussions about Web 2.0 in Library and Information Management work. As this group have traditionally been among the early adopters of internet technologies, pronounced interest in Web/Library 2.0 is understandable.

The increased focus on Web2.0 ideas of change and interactivity seems also to be a response to articulated threats (particularly in the media) to the ‘library-as-institution’ from the kinds of web technologies that have been considered to embody the Web2.0 ethos (such as Google, for example).

The library’s information provider crown is slipping. Justifiably or not, today libraries are increasingly viewed as outdated, with modern, Internet-based services, such as Amazon and Google, looking set to inherit the throne. - Chad and Miller (2005) Do Libraries Matter?

Librarians have been particularly interested in exploring the similarities and differences of these web technologies to traditional library-based information retrieval/provision resources and services in the hopes of meeting changing user expectations. The term “Library 2.0″ as Chad and Miller suggest, has come to stand in for the application of this attitude shift:

Library2.0 is a concept of a very different library service that operates according to the expectations of today’s library users. In this vision, the library makes information available wherever and whenever the user requires it. - Chad and Miller (2005) Do Libraries Matter?

Focus Areas

My impression is that conceptualizations of Library 2.0 can be smooshed into three key areas, which I aim to look at in turn in my three blog posts for this research project:

Visibility (L2Visible)

“…libraries should make themselves and their services visible to end users and to one another…” - Miller (2005) Coming Together Around Library 2.0

Visibility brings information and services to library clients in the spaces where they are already working, studying and playing. This takes the emphasis off the physical bricks-and-mortar instutution of the library as the sole “gateway” venue for accessing information. Instead renewed focus is placed on the library as a community space for face-to-face interaction and learning. The ‘visibile’ of Miller’s statement also implies the need for transparency in the way that libraries interact with their users.

“The principles of Library 2.0 seek to put users in touch with information and entertainment wherever they may be, breaking down the barriers of space, time and outdated policy.” - Michael Stephens Tame the Web

Flexibility (L2Flexible)

“I believe strongly that the most significant characteristic of this era of development is the openess that is enabled by APIs. It’s about sharing information and data and having services work well together.” - Mena, blog post at Mena’s Corner.

The digitization of media/information resources brings increased flexibility to the methods by which this information can be organized and accessed. Library 2.0 sparks ideas about how information management professionals might make their services available to both clients and colleagues in formats that are more readily adapted to engage with other (potentially user-developed) platforms and services.

Web 2.0, web mashups, AJAX, etc., [...] in my mind are all facets of the same phenomenon: that information and presentation are being separated in ways that allow for novel forms of reuse. – Sho Kuwamoto.

Usability (L2Usable)

Library 2.0 is very much influenced by technology-driven, two-way, social interactions between staff and staff or staff and patrons. L2 has provided a framework within which we’ve been able to re-evaluate virtually every aspect of classical librarianship with the end goal of usability and findability in mind. - John Blyberg Blyberg.net

Usability is about increasing participation and interactivity in the management, categorization, development and creation of information. This participation should be solicited from users as well as from within the library institution. Discussions of Library 2.0 have encouraged Librarians to open channels of communication with IT professionals working in their field. Library patrons are seen as a useful “value-added” resource who can help their fellow users (and librarians themselves!) make sense of the information and services they access or wish to access through libraries.

“It’s about embracing those ideas and technologies that can assist libraries in delivering services to these groups [of both traditional and non-traditional information users], and it’s about participation — involving users in service creation and evaluation. Library 2.0 is an operating model that allows libraries to respond rapidly to market needs.” - Michael Casey LibraryCrunch