Dertouzos on future libraries

[Diane Lewis]

IMHO, Joe Shallen is right on target here.  I've been ranting for 
several years now about the hoops library patrons must jump through to 
use our computer systems. 

In my private persona, I refuse to use any library's system other than our own
to find materials.  Just trot myself back to the general area in the 
stacks and browse.  And I speak as someone who's been professionally 
involved in three system conversions and uses an integrated library system,
OCLC, and a standalone LAN  system everyday.  I just don't need any 
more frustration, much less in my leisure time.    

I concur also with Joe's statement that the solution lies in 
standardization.  Moreover, concentration should be on ease of user 
access, with module integration and the various bells and whistles 
taking second place. 

Diane M. Lewis
U.S. Geological Survey Library

> Date:          Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:42:16 -0700
> Reply-to:      jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us
> From:          Joe Schallan <jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject:       Dertouzos on future libraries

> In *What Will Be -- How the New World of Information Will
> Change Our Lives* (HarperEdge, 1997), MIT's Michael
> Dertouzos says (p. 188):
> 
> "Other changes are more certain.  Libraries will remain the
> custodians of physical educational materials, notably books.
> But they will also become managers of the information links
> to other knowledge sites, with the important proviso that
> they, the libraries, control the quality of these virtual
> bookshelves, deciding which knowledge residing at other
> institutions should be targeted by the pointers and hyper-
> organizers of the local library. The new librarians will
> actively ensure the presence of only those virtual links
> that preserve a quality and currency of shared knowledge
> deemed necessary and complementary by their institution.
> Effective management of these shared knowledge pointers
> will be critical to the quality of tomorrow's educational
> institutions, especially because students and faculty
> will also have access to their own huge arsenal of distant
> knowledge links."
> 
> Wow.  Here's a nonlibrarian I.T. expert who sees a huge
> role for librarians in the information space of the future, one
> which looks a great deal like our traditional role of selector.
> He expects us to choose and maintain high-quality links,
> and not act as a mere common carrier.  But do libraries
> have the financial resources to support such a worthy
> goal?  Little ones like mine don't.  Big ones like Cal
> Berkeley may.  Do we need to develop structures for
> effective cooperative work?   I'd much rather point to
> a terrific meta-index developed by librarians than
> rely on what is currently available.  Is developing something
> like this something we could actually do?
> 
> Dertouzos' book has a foreword by Bill Gates and back-
> cover puffery from Esther Dyson, so he's obviously
> well connected and has obtained advance praise from
> the Approved Gurus.  One back-cover blurb says
> "Groupwork, e-forms, automatization, and other
> 'electronic bulldozers' will dramatically increase our
> productivity."
> 
> I wonder.
> 
> This is in strong contrast to the doubts expressed in a
> fascinating, current article in *Scientific American*,
> which points out that despite a hundreds-of-billions
> investment in I.T. by American companies and
> institutions, no measurable increase in white-collar
> productivity can be demonstrated.  The article
> explores some explanations of why this is the case.
> In our hype-laden infotech world, this is *most*
> interesting reading.  If you care about computer
> usability, check the article at
> 
> http://www.sciam.com/0797issue/0797trends.html
> 
> or in the July issue.
> 
> Among the culprits are "Creeping Featurism" (e.g.,
> 311 commands in Word 2.0 versus 1,033 commands
> in Word97) and "futzing."  (And be sure to click
> the "futzing" link for an explanation of the Futz
> Factor and what you can do to keep it from killing
> your productivity.)
> 
> By the way, has anyone counted just how many
> different commands library users face when they
> walk into that machine-laden room we all have
> these days?  We're a medium-sized, suburban
> public library, and our Electronic Info Center
> contains 12 entirely distinct search interfaces,
> counting the online systems and the CD-ROMs.
> (And I'm counting the web browser as one
> interface and not even considering all the
> multifaceted search tools one encounters
> *within* the Web!)  Sure, there's some
> commonality, but not nearly as much as you
> would expect.
> 
> The bewilderment, confusion, and frustration I
> witness daily may be job security for me, but it's
> a helluva way to treat customers.
> 
> <rant>
> Librarians should have been at the forefront of
> developing standards for user interfaces.  We
> could have given our patrons the gift of
> commonality of commands.
> </rant>
> 
> This last stuff is off topic, to be sure, but essential
> reading for all of us, nonetheless, IMO.  I ask
> forbearance.
> 
> Regards,
> Joe
> 
> 
> =================================================
> Joe Schallan, MLS                             jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us
> Reference Librarian and Web Page Editor
> Glendale (Arizona) Public Library                        (602) 930-3555
> 
>