I’m up to my neck in articles while writing my management essay, but this little footnote in “The LibQUAL+ Phenomenon: Who Judges Quality?” by E. Stewart Saunders (Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 1, Fall 2007) made me laugh and I thought I’d share it with you all:
This is not to say that Harvard and the British Library always offer the greatest service. I have a colleague who experienced bad service at the British Library. She used the British Library in the 1970s for her dissertation research in Victorian literature because it and no other library had the sources she needed. It was not infrequently that she was told “the book you want was lost during the bombing raids of World War II” when the library clerk did not feel like retrieving it. A week later the same book would mysteriously reappear.
Koha is one example of a valid open source alternative to proprietary library software that exists today. Open source supporter Eric Raymond (2000) praises open source development in his landmark essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, saying that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” Open source ILS users tend to agree:
Open Source is the key to our future… I was at ACRL and I heard a ton a vendors getting an ear full. [sic] They often make promises they can’t keep and we are so dependent on the outside keeping us afloat. Open Source gives us more control and after awhile, stability. I think the money saved, could provide funding for libraries to hire their own programmers. Now we can take a bite into creating, rather than sitting back and waiting for someone to create what they think we need, we can create what we need. (McBride, 2007)
The recommendation is to have the organization try Koha’s OPAC and librarian interface in the risk-free environment that provides via their web site. (Koha, 2007c) We can then use the ‘task-based’ evaluation model to determine usability problems, if any, that our staff would encounter, and record the process using both qualitative and quantitative measures. (Nickerson, 2007) If the staff finds that Koha is overall just as beneficial as our current proprietary software, then the organization can decide to move forward or not with implementation.
1. Consider helping the PIPWatch project by installing their toolbar and requesting information on privacy policies in your every day browsing.
The Personal Information Protection Toolbar (PIPWatch) is the first privacy technology designed specifically for Canadian Internet users. Built as a toolbar extension for the Firefox web browser, PIPWatch gives real-time feedback on the privacy practices websites visited by Canadian users, in particular whether a site’s owners respect Canadian privacy laws.
By protecting Net Neutrality, we guarantee that pro-union sites do not get blocked, that ISPs do not charge anti-competitive ‘preference’ fees and that independent media can compete based on content, not pocketbook, with the largest of publishers.
3. Say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard.
This standard proposal was not created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties (such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators), but by Microsoft alone.
In brief, I found this article to be a good outline of the “concept” of Library 2.0. The authors gave a basic outline of what the manifestation of Library 2.0 would look like, and I reviewed those points in my paper. I came to a few different conclusions, which, if you’re curious, I’ll share with you over tea. But my main conclusion is this: I personally don’t buy into the whole Library 2.0 hoopla.
Yeah, that’s right, I have a bone to pick with Library 2.0. I hate the term. But let’s put it nicely into the framework of our course FIS 1311 so I don’t sound like a ranting internet crank. So here’s a modified-for-the-web selection from my conclusion.
Chad and Miller assume that Library 2.0 is an acceptable concept that needs to be illustrated to the library community more clearly. However, the so-called “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) can dismiss the entire Library 2.0 bandwagon as a concept that has been poorly framed at best. Digital natives can indeed argue that the concept is actually an organic process – libraries will evolve naturally with new technology, and the only stumbling block to incorporating these library-user-friendly aspects would be the management of libraries.
Simply put, if those in charge of libraries and their systems are not immersed in the constant ebb and flow of new, relevant applications, then yes, the concept of Library 2.0 is something that is necessary to explain. If the library management are digital natives or even “digital immigrants,” (Ibid.) the likelihood of steady implementation of new application technologies is arguably imminent. Library 2.0 can then be framed as a simple ‘tipping point’ term to get the ‘old guard’ in touch with a wide range of new applications – from tag clouds to blogs and wikis – as the best way to interact with their users.
Of course, this is after the fact that they reduced hours (from 9-5 to 10-4) and likely aren’t going to bring those hours back any time soon.
Emphasis mine. Call me crazy, but don’t archives exist for the user? Consulting with users before major changes in service builds the LAC’s client relationship instead of giving them a bad service reputation. That’s just common sense.
…highlighting the somewhat questionable (to put it mildly) decision of the LAC to cut back service hours, citing budgetary issues and needing the staff hours to digitize more of their vast collection. (Currently, only about 1% of the collection is available digitally.)
For more background and hot debate on the LAC’s decision (including the sheer lack of public input), I highly suggest subscribing to the ARCAN-L listserv; a perusal of their archives will turn up a lot of underlying issues that the Globe and Mail only skims.
Welcome to my blog for our 1311 course. If you’d like to know more about me, just click on the tab. Alternatively, enjoy this archival footage of the Charleston mashed up with Daft Punk.
