[Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)

Fri May 4 14:11:57 EDT 2007

> aggregate data to justify what we do, 

> instead of just getting people to use 

> our services.

I think perhaps all of us see the possibilities these new technologies could provide, and some of us can't wait to get to that next level.  But I think academic libraries specifically need to do a bit of a reality check on Library 2.0.

We all know that students and faculty find the library very difficult to use.  The average student looking for books, articles, and reserves for a course will likely need to navigate to and within a half-dozen different library systems and perhaps two or more remote database, each one with an interface more poorly designed and confusing than the next.  Our users face *fundamental* usability and access issues on a daily basis.

In the rather voluminous discourse on Library 2.0, I would like to inject a few points:

First, I think we need to admit that, although blogging, and tagging, and wikis, and RSS feeds and other Web 2.0-ish things are interesting, and perhaps of some use to academic libraries, they do nothing to address the fundamental usability and access issues our users face in using library systems.  They are therefore a secondary concern.

Second, I think we should also admit that the core audience of academic libraries -- undergraduate students -- are unlikely to find any reason to subscribe to RSS feeds or write reviews or tag resources unless they can derive a direct benefit for their research and coursework.  The utility of these technologies is therefore largely limited to our secondary audiences.

Third, I think we have to recognize that, until we address and fix the fundamental issues regarding the integration and usability of library system, we are further diminishing the usefulness of Web 2.0 technologies in academic libraries precisely because these features will remain just as fragmented and disconnected as our current systems.

Finally, I think as a profession we have to realize that, by focusing our efforts on these social Web 2.0 features, we are ultimately drawing both our own and our vendor's resources away from efforts to address these fundamental access issues and similar efforts that will benefit our core audience.  

It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition -- we can both integrate and improve our systems and add these social Web 2.0 features.  But we have to focus on fixing the systems first.  There's no point in extolling the great sun roof and the leather seats and the expensive stereo system when the car is slow and breaks down all the time.

--Dave

-------------------
David Walker
Library Web Services Manager
California State University
http://xerxes.calstate.edu

________________________________

From: Mark Costa [mailto:markrcosta at gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 5:15 PM
To: Walker, David
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)

Can we say that for the next few years, the biggest thing we have to focus on is modularizing our content, and getting it integrated into other people's content? Can we honestly admit that we will not be the "primary" information destination for most people, but instead say that we can add value by helping you create an information rich environment? I think we can do that by leveraging technologies to make our resources open for "cherry picking". 

The biggest challenge for us at that time will be to aggregate data to justify what we do, instead of just getting people to use our services.

-mc

On 5/3/07, Walker, David <dwalker at calstate.edu> wrote: 

	I think the largest barrier we face in implementing the ideas of 'Library 2.0' is that libraries have never really solved *the* fundamental problem from the days of 'Library 1.0' -- namely, integration.

	Getting your data out to other places and allowing people to contribute data back is all well and good.  I'm all for it.

	But if your Library is offering RSS feeds and tagging and other social features among a half-dozen vendor-developed systems and hundreds of remotely hosted databases -- none of which know anything about each other or even operate in the same way -- then we've greatly diminished the utility of these features.  Who wants to go hunting around for RSS feeds or tagging records in a dozen different library systems?  Would it not be better to have all of that in one system? 

	I think Library / Learning Management System integration is probably *the* most important thing academic libraries should be working on.  But, again, before we do that, we need to get all of our library systems integrated together, otherwise we just end up recreating the distributed, disconnected mess of the library in a new space. 

	'Library 2.0' is, as far as I can tell, also about opening systems up, and I think that is ultimately what is going to drive the integration I'm talking about. The problem, though, is that a lot of our vendors are now rushing to add tagging and RSS feeds and other features to their current systems, and not focusing on developing good APIs.  How many ILS systems and aggregator sites are still only accessible via Z39.50?

	The Library community is driving this by focusing on social features *before* focusing on integration.  Layering Web 2.0 over a fragmented, disconnected systems architecture perpetuates our problems.  Let's focus on integration first, demanding that our vendors create good, open APIs.  That will make everything else we want to do much, much easier -- even the old fashioned things of 'Library 1.0'.

	--Dave

	-------------------
	David Walker
	Library Web Services Manager
	California State University
	http://xerxes.calstate.edu

	________________________________ 

	From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of Rob Amend
	Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 10:17 AM
	To: web4lib at webjunction.org 
	Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)

	Exactly!  Libraries need to push information to those who want/need it, not
	wait for patrons to approach our institutional sites. 

	On 5/3/07, Hutchens, Chad <chutchens at montana.edu> wrote:
	>
	> Getting our content elsewhere in our users' daily routines without forcing
	> them to go to our library websites....Relying on people to come through the 
	> library website as a gateway is a very dated idea to be sure.  And I do
	> think that new technologies can be the vehicle that drives that change.  XML
	> is perhaps the most promising of them all.
	> 
	> Respectfully,
	>
	> Chad Hutchens
	> E-Resources Librarian
	> Montana State University
	>
	>
	>
	>
	>
	>
	> Rob Amend
	> Reference Librarian
	> rob.amend at gmail.com
	> reftechrob.blogspot.com
	_______________________________________________
	Web4lib mailing list
	Web4lib at webjunction.org 
	http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/

	_______________________________________________
	Web4lib mailing list
	Web4lib at webjunction.org
	http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/

-- 
Mark R. Costa, MLS

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." 
--- George Bernard Shaw 