Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Methods to Better Understand User Behaviour

Kathy Scardellato, Project Leader, Virtual Reference
Library, Toronto Public Library


'Understanding user behaviour can improve web sites and
other online services. Kathy Scardellato will explore 
some relatively low cost, and easy to replicate usability
tests that can be conducted by your library. She will also
share what TPL has learned from this process'.

In the Developing process of a system, whether it is a 
website, a software or any sort of Information system, 
it is usually built and approached in a certain fashion
and manner. An effecient succesful system usually goes through 
a 'System Lifecycle'. 

System Lifecycle
- Feasibility: stakeholders meeting, scenario
- Requirements: usability requirement, evaluating existing
  system, personas, user interviews and Participatory design
- Design: Prototyping, style guide
- Implement: Evaluation
- Release: Going live


Usability Requirements: Goals
Examples
 
- Understandability: Menus are easy to understand
- Learnability: How easy to learn and in other words easy
                to understand
- Operability: Operation are consistent and tells you how 
               to go abouts when u have an error
- Attractiveness


Evaluating an existing system
- Heuristic evaluation: where you evaluate a site by using
  a group of internal people and not the users. So in this 
  case perhaps the library staff but not the customers or 
  patrons

- Each person works separately and then they get together.
  It helps if you have an observer to see what’s going on. The 
  evaluator is analyzing what’s going  on in the site and they 
  are given a list of heuristics to see if they are in 
  accordance. 

- Recognition rather than recall where the user does not have 
  to recall from one dialogue interface to another

- Design your assumption, hypothesis that you want to test. 
  Turn your hunch to an exclusive hypothesis and test it.

- Defining your personas- they are created to represent for 
  people who would be using the system. What are these users
  like, for the staff user or whoever in the library? 

This was tried on the ‘kidspace’ re-design project.
Scenarios were created

User Interviews- Careful on how you do the interviews so 
                 you don’t have your own biases but
 
- Qualitative
- Uncover problems and goals of users
- Identify functionality that will satisfy goals

The interview was in between fun things it was in between
collages, where the focus of the collage activity was what 
TPL was interested in, i.e. Kid Space.Its all a part of 
participatory design. 

Collages can be used as before and after, what they thought 
might be children websites but never seen them. 


Number of users to be tested can be subjective since there is
no fixed formula on how many user testing is adequate to asses 
the design. 



For Further information, please refer 
to www.virtualreferncelibrary.ca

You may also contact Kathy via email at
kscardellato@torontopubliclibrary.ca


Using a Federated Searching Solution to Keep Pace with User Expectations


Peter Ellinger, MManager, Library Technology Applications,
Ontario Legislative Library
Jane Foo, Digital Services Librarian, Seneca College 
Carolyn Lam, Manager, Newnham Library


"It is only with the launch of sites like Google and Amazon 
that users have developed greater expectations of integrated 
information delivery:emphasis is now on content rather than 
on source. Libraries have since acknowledged that they need 
toprovide a solution for the simultaneous searching of 
disparatecollections of online information. This session 
will look at how two libraries have used and implemented 
ENCompass as their own local federated search solution."



The presentation had two folds, first was by Carolyn Lam
and Jan Foo and the next by Peter Ellinger.  The 
presentation slides for the first part of the presentation
is accessible.



Carolyn Lam :

•Seneca 1st academic college to implement a Federated Search
 technology.  
•Seneca  has 65 web based research databases with 12K 
 electronic books,17K full text electronic journals.
•Searching the fastest growing sector in the IT 
 industry.

Why?
- # of digitizing projects has increased leaps and bound
- Deep web expanding
- E-publishing increasing
- Information seekers expectation expanding

Those of us in library should pay close attention to it. 
Google has found ways and means of searching the ‘Deep Web’,
which were considered invisible once since the search 
engine crawlers would not or could not extra data from data 
tables in the database. 
Google is collaborating with institutes and nations such as  
New York Public Library, Oxford, Harvard, The Congress, Egypt 
and Netherlands to name a few. The project plans on creating 
and having a million books online.

- There are 250,000 license database available. 
- E journals: its 50 times larger than the visible web. This
  type of content is not readily available. 
- Research has shown that searching in search engines has 
  become more critical.


ENCompass for resources Access

- Purchased 
- Traiaing
- XML Training
- Configuration, Technical setup and testing
- Interface desing
- Launched


What is Federated 
- ‘searching consists of transforming a query and broadcasting it 
   to a group of disparate databases with appropriate syntax’

- It is a one stop searching, merged results Control the outcome

Why
Maximize the result quantity by highlighting all the 
different resources and content, that is time efficient. 
A powerful search tool.


Jane Foo:
- Usability in the libraries : Faculty and students found the 
                             initial design challenging 

- Typical day on the internet :35 million adult Americans get 
                               their news from the internet

The New Generation

- Undergraduates felt that a lot of the library resources 
  were not much of use to them
- Baby boomers and Generation X had a different perception
  and expectation of what they needed.

New generation are using a PS2 logic where they use trial 
and error rather than analyzing your option. They use the same
approach like arbitery words and type initially on Google and 
then see what the results may consist off. 


Carolyn Lam:

Factors to Consider for Federated Search Systems 
- Interlinking b/w the databases the content is easy as 
  possible for students
- We want to be able to maintain repository, making college 
  documents available.
- What kind of technology should the federated search be 
  built on, what kinds of standard is 
- Looking at 8 different databases. So what kind of hardware 
  do you need for such kind of simultaneously search process.
- Since all the database are licensed how do u authenticate it.
  Does Federated system support that.
- Customer support- the Project manager interacted with the 
  test group weekly for over 2 years to trouble shoot and build
  the search system
- 2 conference were attended in regards to the Federated system 

How does it work

Use 4 different types of search protocols to 
connect to the local database
- http
- voyager api- integrated library system connect to a local
  database like OPAC or connect to other voyager  library
- z39.50- widely employed among libraries connection to 
  OPAC and other databases containing scholarly content
- XML gateway- where structure way if searching resource when
  its not either of the 2. It’s the most structured , the only 
  drawback is it has to be individually program the XML
  gateway through the ENCompass software. Each vendor had to
  program the XML gateway. The opportunity for Federated search 
  using XML gateway is possible.
- HTTP Connecters- for it to be worked it also needs to be 
  programmed by the library vendors . New standards are coming 
  out SRU/SRW (Search retrieval web service/URL) 

Limitation of Federated Search System
- The quality of search  when you search different databases
  may not always be up to par
- Sometimes you get some strange results that are beyond your 
  expectations
- Search details, since different vendors have their own 
  approach. Like record from EBSCO etc will differ from
  other vendors and the level of details.
- Licensing issue 
- Response rate limit to 10 databases
- Premise behind 
- Relevancy ranking was not possible due to different vendors 
  so they arranged the results in an alphabetic manner.
- Because your using different protocols for each of the database

Successful Implementation 
- Test and see how to fine tune
- Build expertise in meta data and XML- since you have 
  troubleshoot
- Involve the reference staff- they took the role of the 
  usability team, so they can test and run the system
- Provide staff training and they can understand how to 
  incorporate Federated search engine
- Invest in a development/testing environment.

DEMO-

Email Carolyn or Jane if u want to test the system, or view 
the templates


Future Agenda
- Expansions  


Jane.foo@seneca.on.ca
Carolyn.lam@seneca.on.ca




The Second segment of the 2 Part Toolkit Session:


Legislative Library of Ontario Information Sytem 
by Peter Ellinger


Legislative Library 

- Built in 1792, 67 e-databases; 22 priced
- Local network and VPN access
- Clients- Member of Provincial Parliament
- Assembly staff, not open to the public, very focused group

What do the Clients want MPPs

ENCompass allows the clients to access to news
- Toronto Press today, scan daily news of Toronto article,
  photocopy relevant articles
- Ontario Press highlight database: a popular service 
  which gets over 13,000 hits a month
- Press release database
- ENCompass 2.0 July 2004

ENCompass 3.0 Goals

- Learn XML/XSL
- Implement and test HSE connectors
- Model the appropriate connecters 
- Have staff test federated search capabilities
- Develop user interface


Be aware of Federated search engine system
Build a new interface Legislative Library of Ontario 
Information System

Windows environment: 
- Java script
- XML/XSL
- ASP

Now using ENCompass 3.5
- XML gateway to in-house databases

The move to XML API will allow them to access local vendors 
without having issues about connecters

Issues to consider
- HTTP connecters are a little shakiy
- Response time may quadruple with more databases connected
- Results sorting, there is no way , consistent way that 
  federated system can assemble it formally.

Peter Ellinger can be reached at ellinger@ontla.ola.org for 
further information


Monday, May 16, 2005

Opening Keynote: Extending Service to the Increasingly Digital User

Dr. Joseph Janes, Associate Dean for Academics, Information School,
University of Washington

- Ph D from University Of Syracuse
- Founding director of internet public library, instrumental
and started project at  University of Michigan on an Innovative
approach in basketball ticket at Syracuse

- Januray 15th full time; March 15th part time Distance
www.ischool.washington.edu


Theme for the day - How we order service within a digital world?
User base is digital. User base have evolved..where it going and what
we do about it.

Who do libraries serve?

• Reader- user of the library and someone who wants to read ,
it can be for school/public library.

• Casual users- drop ins

• Searchers using traditional tools (catalog, databases, reference works)

• Specialized researchers and local (history, genealogy) – someone
who researches a family history for example

• Writers and creators



What do they Need?

• It took a virtual library building, a public library on the internet
that taught us that people needed ‘stuff’, help, place to be at.
• The virtual library was based on metaphors where everything was a room
like ‘ a reference room’ , a reading room’
• Much of that went away, because they realized they don’t need a room.
The 1st interface they had was the façade of a building. This was 1995,
it was necessary.

So who are we now serving and talking about

• Readers of books, ebooks, downloader of audio books


Net library where once u check out the ebook no one else can check it
out which is ludicrous as oppose to unlimited check out by number.
The idea of circulation and access is not limited, so that means you
don’t have worry about ‘Collection Development’

The concept of book is much more driven.

• Web surfers and casual users (drop ins); you have more privacy,
 you don’t know who they are, the idea of a casual surfer.

• Searchers using traditional tools (catalog, databases, references works)
 and web search tools and eventually the invisible Web, MSN search is a
 distant 3rd…but in Canada its 2nd . Web search is hot and changing search
 is a big deal, its not using site info etc. Search is a big business
 and a lot of money is in stake. Google market capitalization is 60 billion
 dollars and all the revenue is from advertisement. There is lot of aspects.
 You should pay attention to Search because it’s becoming a huge business.
 Microsoft was interested more on search marketing and not technology. Look
 at Google. Things just keep evolving.

Invisible web- are content of information that is blanketed or protected 
behind  password, authentication and credit card barriers. There are
search engines that help in extracting information but more importantly
Google Scholar is appalling. It is more important it is the first and
it exists so that means the cost of entry has risen. That means search
companies have to make deals with publisher, news agency. Same with
Google print . This has made EU not to please. All of this is an indication
that if you want to compete with Google you need to have deals with publishing.
Barry Diller bought askjeeves.com for a billion dollar. He thinks there is
a value in that cause he owns expedia.com and ticketmaster.com Why cause
if you ask where is Rolling Stone playing it will be directed to the ticket
site for example.

Another new thing is the Social networking Social Tagging. The best social
tagging is deliscious.com, this is called social tagging, social
recommendation. They believe that this is an important aspect as social
 recommendation leads to a higher consumption.
         
          
• Bloggers- working its way to the popular mindset.  Blogosphere is at
 the edge where its becoming a threat to journalism. They are very
 informative intensive and very much into connection. They are a natural
 consistence to us if we think they are. It can be a potential market for us.
• Digital object creators (web, music, movies, scrapbooks) burn tour own CDs,
 digital scrap book of their grandkids, videos.  Are we going to teach classes
 on teaching how to create Blogs, make video
• Distance education students, is putting pressure on remote areas like Montana,
 Alaska where students may require certain info that digital tech can bridge.
• Some of these are the same people, familiar with libraries and library services
• Some are new and aren’t and may well not be thinking about libraries as
means of support their work

Conundrum of library over the past 20 yrs is your dealing with clients of
yesterday today and tomorrow

What do the new people digital people need?

•Stuff (your) resources in digital format, accessible and usable. It’s not
hidden, its not misnamed. They want the stuff that you can provide.

Collection development is not required. The idea of you allowing explicit
creative comments, what rights you have, what’s right they have. It’s a
little more fascinating in rights management that library can  get into.

Sunny Bono copyright Act and DMCA is what the US is going through, what Canadians
don’t have to deal with.

•Scholarly Communication – when it breaks apart is going to be ugly. University
of Washington spends 24% of their budget. There is the open access journal model,
 institution open model. CRL are telling faculty not to referee, ALA, ASIS
are less evil. The model is going to break apart. We are reliving 1663,
when they had a good model. Its going to fall on the academic and research
 library problems.

•Instant Answer- The concept of giving answer based on the question you ask,
 instead of a webpage that is displayed when you type in a question with
the search box of  Google, it is limited for now. Another option is askjeeves.com,
 MSN is going to do this with Encarta. There is reach is the CS industry.
 If Google wants to do that, they can afford to with such a high research budget.
People want answers and not just look for answers. When it starts to work and
when they will start to market it, people would start asking questions and
that would put a limit or a an end to the ‘search process’ and that will impact
 libraries.
•Localization- google map


What do they need?

•Help- support in searching, finding, accessing, using and understanding
and evaluating
•Connectivity & connection, bandwidth of both kinds, tech, software,
hardware support, perhaps hosting. Library can help people with writing
with style manuals and now its something like you can help someone to use
email their query. Should libraries help people host websites. Professional
 advice,  guidance, help.
•Ubiquity of place and time 24/7. They need to be supported whenever they
need or are doing something
•They need depth and length. And librarians have a niche in depth
•Place- to assemble, continue, finish, or even a place to be physical
or virtual.


Where do we fit in 

•Articulate our strengths

Play up our service orientation

•When you really need help

Build tools that help people without direct intervention

•Pathfinders is a great tool
•Easily understood names for services and tools, citation, catalog,
index, database, ABI/Inforum
•Is there a link to the library reference

Position yourself as the time saves

•Your good at when Google fails, Google is faster but we can
save you time. People spend hours but they can no concrete result.
 Target market is people who search endlessly.

•Librarians know when to stop when u know your not going to get
 anything. We get to decide what it is that we are suited for.

Some Ideas

•Reference:- mediation = helping people find , tech support
and assistance, production and packaging, marketing, web design
& tool building
•People want to be found when they are Google searched, hence Dr Joseph
decided to do a class on Google and an article in regards to that was
published in NY TIMES since it was the first of its kind.
•Marketing is reference, always kind of advertising


Implication

•When you add material that is virtual, you introduce anywhere, anytime,
 anyway in which people interact with information organized provided
supported by their own community via their library staff.
•In Minnesota they have an e library where they have a whole workforce
to support and maintain it.
•Concept of library is bigger than the physical building.

Do we want to?

•Can we afford not to
•Tradeoffs, reallocation
•How much effort do u want to spend in ready reference ?
Should that be a feature that we should spend a lot of time and
effort on. We should be ready to let go Ready Reference because we
 have better things to do.

What do they really need?
•You and what you represent
•Without us its hard to have a lawyer, doctor etc, we are
the profession that makes humanity more human. We tell our
stories, dance our dance, sing our songs. We facilitated the
telling of stories .

Q&A
21 days timeline for  e books checkout- Rights Management Certificate
that disallows access to the content of the e book  right after the 21st day.

•Orange County, Orlando, Florida and Seattle are two places that
have such existing e book system. They have wireless VOIP that they
use to communicate any other librarians within the building are some
of the successful new library where the organizational and physical
structure. In Orlando the librarian’s ands carry PDAs with them


Saturday, May 14, 2005

Notes from: Thriving in an 'Amazoogle' (Immediate) Environment: 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan

Presentation by Danial Boivin, Director, OCLC

Overview:
- Trends in the five landscapes.
- Dominant patterns.
- Comments/questions.
 
- Worldwide scan: 29 countries.
- Google used quite heavily to gather data 
  used in scan.  Reliability was verified in 
  all cases.
- 100 interviews to validate findings and 
  generate new data.
- Pattern recognition: "What haven't you 
  noticed lately"?

Five landscapes:
- Social.
 - Users navigating 'infosphere' with 
   ease, speed, and confidence.
 - Seamlessness (portable computing?).
 - Google was the main provider in 
   2003.  Now Google is down to 35%.
 - 35% of users are 65 and older 
   (worldwide).
 - Up to 32% are making purchases on 
   the internet (worldwide).
 - "Why should we go to the library if 
   everything is on the Web?"
  - Most information consumers 
    are content with the 
    information they find in the 
    web.
  - Missions of OCLC and Google 
    are very similar (see 
    powerpoint slide).
     - How can libraries 
       compete with such 
       a strong brand 
       (Google).
 - Importance of marketing the library.
 - Anatomy of a gamer (tomorrow's 
   library user?).  They:
  - Compete.
  - Collaborate.
  - Create.
 - 8.4million of 'mini-boomers' in 
   Canada (between the age of 4 and 
   24).
- Economic.
 - Economic growth will probably be 
   more limited in the future.
 - 75% of library expenditures from 
   only five countries.
 - Sources of library funds.
  - Mostly public funds (86.9%)
  - To a lesser extent, user 
    fees, and ?
 - Resource allocation.
  - Staff (53%).
  - Materials stock (27%)
  - Other (17%).
  - E-content subscriptions (3%).
- Technical.
 - Difficult to nail down this 
   information (it's a moving target).
 - A "frantic drive" to bring structure 
   to unstructured data.
 - It is possible to be constantly 
   connected (electronically).
 - Technology collaboration and open 
   source.
  - IT community has finally 
    'bought in to' open source.
 - Security, authentication, and 
   digital rights management.
- Research and Learning Landscape.
 - Reduced funding.
 - Proliferation of e-learning.
 - Lifelong learning in the community.
 - Changing pattern of research and 
   learning.
 - Institutional repositories and open 
   access.
 - New flows of scholarly materials.
  - Flow between research, 
    peer-reviewed journals, 
    repositories, aggregators, 
    etc.
- Library
 - Circulation began to drop in about 
   1997/1998.
 - Reference transactions began to drop 
   in about 1998 (when Google joined 
   the scene).
 - New roles developing in libraries, 
   and old roles becoming less 
   critical.
 - Content is important, but so is 
   context - providing information 
   where and when it is needed.
 - Metrics applied evaluate the success 
   businesses have some application in 
   libraries.
 - Expectation of immediate service, 
   etc.  User's perspective: If it's 
   not on the web, it doesn't exist.

Three dominant patterns:
- Decrease in guided access to content.
 - Users find information independently 
   but may make use of finding aids.
- Disaggregation.
 - "Least publishable 
   unit"/microcontent.
- Collaboration.

Open WorldCat
- OCLC put 2milion marc records in to Google 
  and Yahoo (Open WorldCat).
- "Library Search" link in Google Scholar.  
  Also available (sometimes?) in standard 
  search.
- Display of each item shows MARC record with 
  locations of items and links to libraries.
- 7million users have clicked all the way 
  through Google or Yahoo to a library web 
  page!

- 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan and related 
  documents available online. 

Questions:
- Q: Why the integration with Google and 
  Yahoo?
- A: To bring more traffic to library 
  websites.

- Q: What else has OCLC done to promote 
  libraries.
- A: OCLC:
 - Is trying to build a 
   community-supported knowledge-base 
   for virtual reference.
 - Has developed software to support 
   digitization and uses Dublin Core.
--Notes by Charles Dunham

Notes from: Enabling Researchers in the 21st Century through Library Portals

Presentation by Dr. Brian Detlor

Overview:
- Increasing competition from search engines 
  and content providers.
- Solution: A "Robust Library Portal".
- Strong need to integrate library resources 
  in any sort of portal offered by a 
  university.
- Private sector has adopted information 
  portals much earlier than libraries.
- Mentions several government portals 
  including www.youthpath.ca, which was 
  developed using participatory design 
  techniques.  Asks why librarians are 
  designing websites when we should really ask 
  the user tell us what they want to see.
- Mentions a portal that uses a task-based 
  approach rather than a subject based 
  approach.  Asks why don't we do this with 
  library web sites.  Asks why the divisions 
  of library web pages bother to mirror the 
  physical divisions of a library.
- Working on a paper about the assessment of 
  ARL websites.
 
What is a portal?
- "Applications that enable companies to 
  unlock internally and externally stored 
  information..." (Shilakes & Tylman, 1998).
- A launch pad or gateway to various 
  information content and services.
 
Some possible enterprise portal features:
- Enterprise search.
- Directory browsing.
- Real-time information.
- Automated content classification.
- Personalization.
 
Purpose of a portal.
- To integrate a fractured array of 
  information in a common interface.
 
An 'ideal' portal has these three pieces:
- Content space.
 - Access to data and documents.
- Communication space.
 - Users interact with each other.
- Coordination space.
 - ?
 
Library portals.
- Definition from Dempsy (2003).
 
What kind of functions can a library portal 
offer?
- Search several databases from one place.
- E-reference services.
- Broadcast search tools (?).
- Personalization features.
- Enriched content (biographies, review, 
  etc.).
- Virtual communities.
 - Communicate with other users of a 
   work or class of works.
 
- Subject gateways and digital libraries are 
  usually focused on the access to content 
  rather then the use of the portals.
- His vision of a library portal adds 
  collaboration (and other features) to the 
  mix.
 
Study of ARL library portals:
- 107 member websites evaluated.
- Explanation of evaluation metrics (citations 
  and some description on PowerPoint slides).
- Generally speaking, most libraries have:
 - Login or registration.
 - Online catalogues.
 - Journals as part of catalogue.
 - Separate access to:
  - e-resources.
  - e-journals.
  - e-databases.
- And...
 - About 75% offered virtual reference, 
   but it was often ambiguously 
   advertised.
 - About 75% offered reserve/request 
   feature for checked-out books.
 - About 50% had an A-Z site index.
 - About 46% had improved error 
   messages.
 - About 5% automatically presented ILL 
   option if book is not available.
 - About 30% did not have search box on 
   the home page.
  
- Columbia and the University of Austin 
  actually have a search box to search Google 
  Scholar (surprised they would do this).
 
Only two universities offered federated 
searching:
- University of Pittsburgh
  http://www.library.pitt.edu/
- University of Oklahoma 
  http://libraries.ou.edu/
  
Library portals that they especially liked:
- University of California San Diego 
  http://libraries.ucsd.edu/
- University of Iowa  
  http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/
- University of Oklahoma  
  http://libraries.ou.edu/
 
- Comment from audience:  Some of these 
  services such as federated searching may not 
  work well enough at this point to recommend  
  them to libraries.
 
Other problems.
- Naming problems (i.e. RACER instead of 
  interlibrary loan).
- Library lingo prevails.  Isn't an online 
  catalogue a database too?
- Why not hide the tools?
- Lack of innovative designs and 
  personalization options.
 
So how should academic library portals evolve?
- Competitors (i.e. Google Scholar) should be 
  catalysts for our own improvement.
 
6 potential areas of improvement.
- Information access.
 - "Think about what students, 
   teachers, and researchers actually 
   do with library resources and build 
   the library around those tasks".
 - "Facilitate access from mobile 
   devices".
 - Store all information in one place.  
   User's don't care if outside links 
   are included in the catalogue.
- Information seeking.
 - Automated indexing, especially now 
   that so many resources are offered 
   electronically.
 - Query term expansion.
 - Federated searching.
 - Information visualization.
 - Intelligent agents.
 - Consider opening up catalogues to 
   search engine bots.
- Personalization.
 - Content.
 - Look and feel.
 - Links to resources of a specified 
   type.
- Interface design.
 - Attractive.
 - Avoid jargon.
 - Hide complex tools.
 - Printer-friendly pages.
 - etc.
- Information use.
 - Provide means for users to work with 
   the information they find (i.e.  
   bibliographic management tools).
 - Provide common software tools for 
   library patrons to manipulate the 
   information found.
 - Online ILL.
- Communication.
 - Virtual reference.
 - Information pushed to users of 
   certain profiles.
 - Allow patrons to talk to other 
   patrons.
 - Allow patrons to provide 
   feedback/reviews on library 
   resources.
 - Allow library patrons to annotate 
   text.
 
Assuming these changes are put in to place, 
what will the impact of these portals be on 
academic libraries?
- Librarians will have to think more about how 
  and why patrons use information.  Consider 
  letting users design the web site 
  themselves.  Librarian-designed sites are 
  currently 'birds of a feather'.
- Must be some cooperation between libraries.
 - Why should libraries compete with 
   each other when Google is the major 
   competitor?
- Must be some standardization in the 
  underlying structure so portals can be 
  integrated?
- Open source allows you to modify the 
  software to do what you want it to do and 
  look how you want it to look.
 - Cheaper.
 - Better code.
 - Better support.
 - There have been great successes with 
   open source university portals.
- How do you get people to adopt the library 
  portal as a first stop?
 - Tam's adoption model (see PowerPoint 
   slide).
 - Tam2: Social and cognitive factors 
   that favour adoption (see PowerPoint 
   slide).
 
Closing thoughts.
- Historically there has been so much focus on 
  collections and access to collections.  We 
  should do more in terms of services, and 
  design those services based on the tasks 
  that our patrons perform.
--Notes by Charles Dunham

Notes from: Power to the librarians? (Creative Commons)

Presentation by Marcus Bornfreund, Project Leader, Creative Commons Canada

- Creative Commons is a copyright tool.  It 
  allows people to reserve some of their 
  copyright and express that to other people.
- Scope of this presentation is technology law 
  and information (no politics).

Intellectual property.
- Definition: A set of rules that aims to 
  balance the rights of a creator with the 
  rights of users.
- Protects the manner in which an idea is 
  expressed.
- "Free as in price" is different from "free 
  as in freedom" (to use, modify, etc.).

2 groups of copyrightable objects:
- Software (not discussed in this 
  presentation).
- Non-software.

Spectrum of restrictiveness.
- "All rights reserved".
 - All copyright is granted to the 
   creator, with some exception (i.e.  
   'fair dealings').  Creator can waive 
   some of these rights.
 - All rights are reserved even without 
   the symbol.  You just need to know 
   (prove?) the date of creation.
- "Some rights reserved".
 - This is a grey area.
- "No rights reserved".
 - Public domain.

- Six creative commons licenses of varying 
  restriction.
- If we can't protect the expression of ideas 
  we are reluctant to share them.  Thus 
  Creative Commons can be thought of as a 
  "sharing space".
- "We are presently in an information 
  revolution", because the structure of 
  information sharing has changed.
- 'Plugs' the value of networks.
- Short movie marketing the Creative Commons 
  licences, and website.

Rundown of some of the CC rights:
- Attribution.
 - Give credit.
- ShareAlike.
 - Derivatives allowed.
- NoDerivataves.
- NonCommercial.
 - Derivatives can not be used for 
   commercial purposes.

- Website walks users through the process of 
  choosing a license.
- Because copyright laws are different in 
  Canada, Canadian licenses are somewhat 
  different from the generic licences.
- CC Canadian licences are legally 
  enforceable.
- CC presented as a solution to the copyright 
  problems of digital objects.
 - Content of blogs and newsfeeds, for 
   example, are copyrightable.

How is CC useful to library and information 
sciences?
- Institutional repositories for digital 
  materials created by members of a University 
  provide a perfect application for CC.  Some 
  inst. repositories have CC license 
  generators built in to them.  We need to 
  understand these licenses so we can explain 
  them to users.  Librarians should be 
  "illuminating the way".
- What do we do when we digitize works with 
  copyright still in effect (it's kind of 
  messy).  New works are easier to apply 
  licenses to.

Questions:
- Q: The more steps you have in the process of 
  submitting something the less likely people 
  will submit (in the context of inst. 
  repositories).  Please comment on this.
- A: "It's a bit of a juggling act".  In some 
  cases a single license can be applied to the 
  entire collection.

- Q: How would you attach the CC logo to a 
  .pdf document?
- A: It can be imbedded in the document 
  itself.

- Q: Is CC for traditionally published works 
  as well (i.e. books, journals)?
- A: It is exceptionally applicable to digital 
  works, but it can (and, perhaps, will) be 
  applied to all sorts of things including 
  books, journals, etc.

Some final words:
- Don't get attached to the product, get 
  attached to the idea.
- Something to worry about: What if you can 
  convince scholars to share their work, but 
  they pick the most restrictive license?
- This is just the beginning of a revolution 
  and we have to pace ourselves and work 
  through it intelligently.
--Notes by Charles Dunham

Notes from: Extending Services to the (Increasingly) Digital User [Opening Keynote]

Presentation by Dr. Joseph Janes

Warmup and overview.
- Likes Canada.
 - Tim Horton’s.
 - Oxford English Dictionary, Canadian 
   edition: "eh".
- Invites applicants for 
  www.ischool.washington.edu (people who want 
  to work with young people in particular).  
  Nancy Pearl teaches there.
- "Theme of the day": How we think about 
  offering services in a digital world.
- "Lots of users are digital, to one extent or 
  another as the information environment 
  continues to evolve along with what people 
  want to do."
- As reference librarians, do we reach for 
  books or do we go to the keyboard?
 
Who have we been serving?
- Readers
 - Users of libraries or just anyone 
   who wants to read.
- Casual users (drop ins)
- Searchers using traditional tools 
  (catalogue, databases, reference works).
- Specialized researchers local and otherwise 
  (i.e. interest in local history, genealogy).
- Writers and creators.
 - Make use of libraries quite a lot.
- Learners.
 - The whole span, elementary to 
   lifelong.
 
What do they need?  What do they want out of a 
library?
- Stuff.
- Help.
- Place.
 - Even though the internet is a 
   "placeless place".
 - Original design of the IPL used 
   physical metaphors for pages (i.e.  
   reference desk, exhibit hall, etc.). 
   Necessary to help designers think 
   about what to offer in the service.
 
Who are we talking about?
- Users of:
 - Books.
 - E-books.
 - Downloadable audio books.
  - Bizarre that some audio book 
    vendors lock books when you 
    check them out (no 
    concurrent uses allowed).
  - A vendor suggested that a 
    slew of audio books make 
    collection development 
    irrelevant (disapproves, of 
    course).
- Web surfers and casual users (drop-ins).
 - Casual users could mean visitors to 
   a library website.
 - Most web pages internal to library 
   web sites are not designed to be 
   found by web searches.
- Searchers using:
 - Traditional tools (catalogue, 
   databases, reference works).
 - Web search tools (and eventually the 
   invisible Web).
  - Web search is changing.  Web 
    search is "hot".  Web search 
    is a big business.
  - The invisible web is about 
    to become less invisible.  
    Google Scholar is the "first 
    wedge of the traditional 
    search world in to the 
    invisible web".  Now search 
    companies will have to 
    negotiate with electronic 
    content providers to compete 
    with Google.  "The search 
    world is going to look a lot 
    more like the content 
    world."
  - The new thing in search is 
    social networking stuff.
   - Folksonomies 
     (organizational 
     structures built by 
     user communities).  
     del.icio.us, a 
     social book marking 
     tool is a prominent 
     example.
   - The search companies 
     believe that one way 
     to improve the 
     technology is to 
     involve the 
     community.
  - Gmail becomes a data-mining 
    tool for Google.
  - In the US, email kept beyond 
    100 days on a server is no 
    longer private.
- Specialized researchers (interested in local 
  history, genealogy, etc.).
- Bloggers.
 - Dedicated blogger community 
   sometimes called the "blogosphere".  
   Will either become part of the 
   conversation or it will fall away.
 - "They are a natural constituency for 
   us [libraries] if they _think_ they 
   are", but bloggers are not generally 
   aware of what goes on in the library 
   world (with the exception of 
   librarian-bloggers).
- Digital object creators (Web, music, movies, 
  scrapbooks).
 - Are we going to support this kind of 
   work (i.e. teaching classes on how 
   to create a blog, a digital 
   scrapbook, etc.)?
- Distance education students.
 - "Our distance system is putting 
   pressure on very small libraries in 
   Alaska...".
 
- Some of the above people are the same people 
  we have always served.  Others _would_ make 
  use of library services, but don't think of 
  libraries as a means to support their work.
- Dilemma: You have to satisfy people who want 
  print (generally older people), and people 
  who want all digital.
 
What do the increasingly-digital people need?
- Stuff.
 - Your resources in digital format, 
   accessible and usable.
 - Mentions creative commons as a means 
   to explicitly specify what you can 
   do with an object.
 - "The scholarly communication model 
   as we understand is is going to 
   break."  The open access journal 
   model and institutional repositories 
   will figure in the ensuing dialogue 
   over scholarly publishing.  When the 
   model breaks it will fall to 
   academic librarians to fix it 
   (challenge/opportunity).
 - Instant answers.
  - This is coming in the 
    internet search world.
  - Ask Jeeves is _supposed_ to 
    do this sort of thing.
  - Certain questions in Google 
    currently retrieve answers 
    (i.e.  "Who is Jane Fonda").
  - These will become a common 
    feature of search engines.  
    People will not want to 
    search; they will want to 
    type a question.  This 
    expectation will affect 
    libraries.
- Help.
 - Support in searching, finding, 
   accessing, using, understanding 
   evaluating (including, perhaps, 
   instruction where appropriate).
 - Librarians tend to have trouble not 
   capitalizing and punctuating when 
   performing chat reference services.  
   Patrons just want fast answers, not 
   attractive elegantly phrased 
   answers.
 - Connectivity and connection.
 - Technology, hardware support, and 
   (perhaps) hosting.
  - We hate to provide hardware 
    and software support, but it 
    is our job as librarians.  
    After all, what is the 
    functional difference 
    between helping people with 
    style manuals and helping 
    people to use email in order 
    to get things done?
  - What about web hosting 
    services.  We provide 
    carrels for grad and 
    doctoral students - is this 
    significantly different?
 - Professional advices, guidance, 
   help.
  - Likens reference to doctors, 
    accountants etc.  People 
    want our professional 
    advice, but we tend to shy 
    away from advice and 
    guidance to avoid bias.  
    "People just need to be told 
    what to pay attention to...  
    Because there's too much, 
    they get overwhelmed."
 - Ubiquity of place and time.
  - They want/need to be 
    supported whenever and 
    wherever they are doing 
    something.
 - Depth and length are unmet needs.
  - Needs and questions go far 
    deeper than what is 
    available through Google and 
    other resources that provide 
    superficial answers.  We 
    can't compete in the 
    superficial, but we can 
    shine when it comes to 
    providing in-depth answers. 
- Place.
 - A place to start.
  - i.e. 'I've got to write a 
    term paper, what do I do'.
 - A place to finish.
 - A place to continue.
 - A place to be (physical and 
   virtual).
 - We have always provided a place.  We 
   may have to conceptualize it 
   somewhat differently.
 
What do they _want_?
- Quick.
- Free.
- Cheap.
 
Why don't people ask for help?
- People don't know what we do.
- It's not just us.  People don't ask for help 
  because they don't want to look stupid.
- University student: 'I never thought a 
  librarian would spend that much time with 
  me.'  Whose fault is it that students don't 
  know that?
 
What should we do?
- Play up our service orientation
 - "When you really need help and it 
   really matters...ask your 
   librarian".
 - "Don't just get information...be 
   informed".
- Build tools that help people without direct 
  intervention.
 - Pathfinders.
- Make sure names of services and tools are 
  easily understandable.
 - Examples of commonly used, but 
   easily misunderstood terms: 
   citation, catalogue, index database, 
   ABI/Inform.
 - Examples of understandable versus 
   cryptic: 'Four new ways to build 
   your business' versus 'Four new 
   business information databases'.
- Provide lots of links to library services in 
  places where they will probably be used.
 - Is there a link to the reference 
   service on the front page of the 
   academic institution?
- Position ourselves and our services as time 
  savers.
 - "Google's fast, but we can save you 
   time".  People who know how to 
   search Google don't need us, but 
   those who spend hours on Google do 
   need us.  "Why search when we can 
   help you find?"
 - The median time to find a 
   satisfactory answer via a search 
   engine is about 11 minutes.  That's 
   a _long_ time.  If we are in their 
   minds as a place where they can go 
   when it is not working on their own, 
   then they will come to us.
- Decide what kinds of things we are best 
  suited for (and by   implication, what we 
  are not suited for).
 
Some ideas.
- Reference.
 - If we think of search, collection 
   development, reader's advisory, 
   education, etc. as the paradigm of 
   reference we will get stuck there.  
   Throws out the word _mediation_.
- Show people how to be found on the internet.  
  People who are building businesses, writing 
  blogs, etc.  People want to be found because 
  they want to tell their story.
- Tech support.  It's "just part of the deal".
- Production and packaging.
- Marketing.
- "I think marketing is reference work" 
  because if they don't know that you are 
  doing it you can't help them.  Marketing is 
  seen by librarians as "beneath us" (this 
  needs to change).  Some libraries even do 
  bus and radio ads, choice of four different 
  colours of library cards.
- Web design and tool building.
 
Implications.
- Libraries used to be tied to a physical 
  place.  Concept of library is now expanding 
  to "where is was always meant to be".  When 
  people are searching the catalogue or using 
  the library home page they are "in the 
  library".  A Minnesota library system staffs 
  their website like a branch (likes this).  
  The concept of a library was always bigger 
  than the building - it is now "finally 
  free".
 
Do we want to do this stuff?
- Can we afford to?
- Funds will have to be reallocated.  Ready 
  reference can be cut back since Google is 
  now filling this role.  There are a lot of 
  libraries on the web that say they are there 
  to answer quick factual questions, but "I 
  think it's time to say goodbye to ready 
  reference".  "I think we should focus on 
  what we can do better then anyone else."  
  Ready reference is already going (we are 
  getting fewer and harder questions).  
  Spending longer amounts of time with people 
  on difficult question provides an 
  opportunity to make a significant impression 
  on them.
- We are the most important profession in the 
  world because other professions could not 
  exist without us.  We (humans) need to tell 
  our stories.  We (librarians) facilitate the 
  telling of those stories, and this allows us 
  to better ourselves individually and 
  collectively.
- When people have an information need we have 
  to be there so they can get at us.  "If we 
  are central to the information lives of our 
  communities, they will come to us when it 
  matters."
 
Questions
- Q: Audience member notes the tension between 
  the old guard and newer librarians in the 
  academic library where she works.
- A: Identifies with old guard: "What I got in 
  to this to do has been taken out from 
  underneath of me".  If librarians got in to 
  the profession to help people and 
  communities, they can be advocates and 
  ambassadors for new ways of providing 
  service.  If they got in to this as a place 
  to hide, to cuddle a book, then they have to 
  go.  Notes that some reference librarians 
  who were surly at the desk are excellent at 
  email reference.
 
- Q: What about faculty who challenge the 
  provision of BI in classes?
- A: Figure out a way to say nicely that these 
  students are going to forget what you teach 
  them but they will use bi skills for the 
  rest of their lives.  "I can make your life 
  better" is the siren song of librarianship - 
  people need to hear this.
 
- Q: How is a 21 day loan period enforced for 
  downloadable audio books?
- A: Digital rights management software is 
  downloaded along with audio file.
 
- Q: Please provide examples of libraries that 
  are changing management structure to make 
  these sorts of changes possible.
- A: A Seattle library has a more distributed 
  service model.  Everybody helps with 
  everything (no specialization?).  They carry 
  wireless devices including phones to network 
  with other librarians, etc.  Some people 
  hate it, and some people love it.  Orange 
  county does something similar.  Staff has 
  wireless PDA's with catalogue on it.  The 
  distributed service model is the "next 
  wave".
 
- Q: Please elaborate on the failure of 
  virtual reference.
- A: "I think we are still largely in an 
  experimental phase with that".  Some 
  services are not launched with clear 
  expectations, and means for defining 
  success.  There are good and bad virtual 
  reference services.  The term "digital" 
  makes it look like a different thing than 
  "ordinary" reference, but  different modes 
  of reference should be marketed as a single 
  service.
--Notes by Charles Dunham

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Digital Odyssey Conference Materials!

Here is the 2005 OLITA Digital Odyssey Conference Programme: Session Descriptions and Schedule for the Day! More info about the keynote speaker, Dr. Joseph Janes. Directions to the conference location (from Google Maps.)

Welcome

Welcome to Digital Odyssey 2005