Thing #19: Apps, They're not just for desktops any more. Alas, another neat thing I can't use at home. My browser won't support it.
I love the idea of Google Documents, especially for those days when I forget my flash drive. In fact, I composed this post in Google Docs. And it's a great thing to show library patrons who need to work on their documents both at home and the library. The utility of this web-based document creation, editing, and storage is blazingly obvious. Of all the things we've seen in Nebraska Learns 2.0, I believe that this is the one that has the greatest potential to be useful to the widest spectrum of people. Flickr isn't for everyone. Neither is Twitter. Some people might not have a use for RSS (although that's harder for me to imagine), but everyone who uses a computer creates, uses, and shares documents of some type. And beyond its utility, the interface is intuitive and friendly. This app is pure gold, and I'm mighty grateful to you Nebraska Learns 2.0 folks for introducing me to it.
I have to disagree with the idea that web-based productivity software will be the death of Microsoft Office and other software products. First of all, at least at present, the web apps lack a lot of the functionality of the full software versions. I found the Google Documents slideshow function to be primitive, and it failed to import slides from an existing .ppt slideshow. I didn't do much with the Google Documents spreadsheet function, because I'm not a big Excel user, but it looked fairly basic to my untrained eye. But even with documents, which seems to be the nicest function, it's lacking a lot of the capabilities of Microsoft Word. For example, I imported one of my Word files (a template for printing DVD case inserts), and the formatting was blown all to heck. So you might not be able to put the final touches on a document that needs to look a certain way for printing.
Also, there's a security issue. Are Google Documents really private? Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure Google's robots aren't scanning the files? Are you absolutely sure they never, ever will? There will always be a handful of paranoid people (like me) who want to keep our most important files on our hard drives, which gives us at least the illusion of having control over them.
Lastly, there is the question of whether Google will really store your documents indefinitely. While Google as a whole seems to big to fail, they are not immune to the need to reorganize and kill off projects. While it's vanishingly unlikely that Google would ax Documents without giving people a chance to rescue or transfer their files, the possibility exists in theory.
Don't get me wrong. I love Google Docs, and I can tell I will be using it regularly and referring many others to it. For documents I need to share, or that I want to access from multiple computers, or which I intend to eventually put out on the open web anyway, it is fantastic and full of win. I think this is my favorite new tool I've picked up from these exercises.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thing #18: PBwiki
Somehow it seems cosmically wrong to be working on Thing #18: Playing around with PBwiki on the auspicious day of President Obama's inauguration. Nothing can compare to the power of that event, but I must work on these things whenever I have the opportunity. The deadline is near for Nebraska Learns 2.0, and I need to keep moving.
After looking at the discovery resources for PBwiki, I was very excited. It looked so very easy compared to Wikipedia and the Confluence wiki software we use at my library. I was thrilled by the promise of simplicity, a wiki easily accessible to all.
And then I clicked on edit, and discovered that PBwiki is completely incompatible with my computer (or at least my browser) at home. After numerous retries and reloads, I eventually got something other than a blank page. But the page I got was filled with strange code and odd blocks of color--definitely not a friendly display. So I gave up. (Side note: This was rather a surprise. I have no trouble editing Wikipedia articles from home, and I did not expect PBwiki to have higher browser requirements than Wikipedia.)
Now I'm at the library, using a decent computer. I went to PBwiki and clicked edit, and I got exactly what I should have: a simple, user-friendly, editable page. I edited a couple of pages on the Nebraska Learns 2.0 wiki, and it was easy and intuitive in a way I would never have expected from my previous experience with other wiki software. By hiding the markup code behind a rich text editor, they really made their wiki friendly and nonthreatening.
PBwiki would be great for a public wiki that a library wanted to share with its patrons. It would also make a very nice internal staff wiki. It's very nice. If I ever need to set up a wiki in the future, I would seriously consider using PBwiki as the platform.
After looking at the discovery resources for PBwiki, I was very excited. It looked so very easy compared to Wikipedia and the Confluence wiki software we use at my library. I was thrilled by the promise of simplicity, a wiki easily accessible to all.
And then I clicked on edit, and discovered that PBwiki is completely incompatible with my computer (or at least my browser) at home. After numerous retries and reloads, I eventually got something other than a blank page. But the page I got was filled with strange code and odd blocks of color--definitely not a friendly display. So I gave up. (Side note: This was rather a surprise. I have no trouble editing Wikipedia articles from home, and I did not expect PBwiki to have higher browser requirements than Wikipedia.)
Now I'm at the library, using a decent computer. I went to PBwiki and clicked edit, and I got exactly what I should have: a simple, user-friendly, editable page. I edited a couple of pages on the Nebraska Learns 2.0 wiki, and it was easy and intuitive in a way I would never have expected from my previous experience with other wiki software. By hiding the markup code behind a rich text editor, they really made their wiki friendly and nonthreatening.
PBwiki would be great for a public wiki that a library wanted to share with its patrons. It would also make a very nice internal staff wiki. It's very nice. If I ever need to set up a wiki in the future, I would seriously consider using PBwiki as the platform.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Thing #17: Wikis Ahoy!
Because I have experience with a couple of different wikis, I didn't expect to learn much from Thing #17: So what's in a wiki? To my delight, I was wrong. The Book Lovers Wiki didn't fit my mental model of what a wiki "looks" like. Also, on Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki I noticed the "Random Page" link on the left sidebar. It turns out that this also exists in Wikipedia; I just never noticed it because there is so much other stuff in Wikipedia's left sidebar that my eyes just gloss over it all. But the Random Page link is fun! It's wiki roulette! I believe I've just found my next source of entertainment.
One of the core tenets of wiki wisdom is that "anyone can edit" a wiki. While that may be true, I submit that wiki markup can be intimidating. I've edited in two different wikis: Wikipedia and the Confluence wiki we use at work. Their markup languages are completely different. Not only is neither one like html, neither one is like the other. This lack of standardization means that there is a learning curve not just for wikis, but for each wiki platform. Sure, if you just want to type in a line of text, it's no problem, but if you want to add a link or make a table, you have to learn the markup.
Our Confluence wiki has the option to edit pages in rich text, which does make it much more accessible, even if the rich text editor is a little on the buggy side. Everyone at work is encouraged to use the wiki. In fact, it's almost required. We use it for news, policies, procedures, meeting minutes, projects, discussions, and more. Even so, there are a few people who won't edit the wiki unless specifically told to. And there remains the perception that it is difficult, and some of my colleagues routinely come to me for help whenever they need to edit a page. I'm always glad to help. It's one of my official duties as a SpaceRanger, which is what "wiki power users" are called in my library, but also, I enjoy it. It's fun and interesting. And I always work directly in wiki markup rather than rich text, because I feel like I have better control over what the page will look like.
My library's wiki is strictly staff-only. It's not available to the public, and anonymous edits are not allowed. From Using Wikis to Create Online Communities, I do like the idea of using a wiki as a subject guide, especially if truly anyone could edit. The subject specialist librarian could moderate/shepherd it, to keep it accurate.
As for using a wiki to edit catalog entries, I think that might have to wait until OCLC comes around and makes WorldCat truly open. If all catalogers could edit all bib records, regardless of the encoding level, the bibs would become better. And while the general public should probably not be able to edit the MARC data or the authority-controlled fields, I think it would be great to let users add notes and summaries to records, not just tags and reviews. If a "vandal" were to add false or highly biased information, I'm sure the next cataloger to see it would take care of it. Or perhaps a passionate user might beat the catalogers to it.
One of the things people seem to fear about Wikipedia and other wikis is the threat not only of outright vandalism but of bias and unverified information being added to articles. Having read Wikipedia's content criteria in depth, I can say that such shenanigans are not tolerated on that site. The core Wikipedians are hypervigilant of any such abuses, and any malicious edits tend to be discovered and reversed very quickly. I don't mean "days" quickly, I mean "minutes" quickly. Yes, it is possible that you might see an article before it gets fixed. If you see something that just doesn't seem right, the simple solutions are to a) look at the history pages, and b) check back later to see the next version.
In Wikis in Plain English, when they showed the example of a user starting a page that said, "Pups are cute!" followed by someone changing it to, "Pups are messy!" I burst out laughing and thought, "And now the edit war begins."
Looking at a wiki's history pages can be very enlightening. Edit wars can be educational, if librarians and teachers use them as examples. Oftentimes, you can see both sides of a hotly-debated topic bared in a way you'd never observe from reading static articles.
But the most important thing to remember about wikis is that they are tools. Fabulous and awesome tools, and incredibly useful, but still tools. As Kate Sheehan said, "It’s easy to become enamored of social networking sites and Web 2.0 toys to the point where they seem like a panacea for everything that’s wrong with your library or your job. Slap a wiki on it and call me in the morning." In the end, it's not about the wiki; it's about the people.
One of the core tenets of wiki wisdom is that "anyone can edit" a wiki. While that may be true, I submit that wiki markup can be intimidating. I've edited in two different wikis: Wikipedia and the Confluence wiki we use at work. Their markup languages are completely different. Not only is neither one like html, neither one is like the other. This lack of standardization means that there is a learning curve not just for wikis, but for each wiki platform. Sure, if you just want to type in a line of text, it's no problem, but if you want to add a link or make a table, you have to learn the markup.
Our Confluence wiki has the option to edit pages in rich text, which does make it much more accessible, even if the rich text editor is a little on the buggy side. Everyone at work is encouraged to use the wiki. In fact, it's almost required. We use it for news, policies, procedures, meeting minutes, projects, discussions, and more. Even so, there are a few people who won't edit the wiki unless specifically told to. And there remains the perception that it is difficult, and some of my colleagues routinely come to me for help whenever they need to edit a page. I'm always glad to help. It's one of my official duties as a SpaceRanger, which is what "wiki power users" are called in my library, but also, I enjoy it. It's fun and interesting. And I always work directly in wiki markup rather than rich text, because I feel like I have better control over what the page will look like.
My library's wiki is strictly staff-only. It's not available to the public, and anonymous edits are not allowed. From Using Wikis to Create Online Communities, I do like the idea of using a wiki as a subject guide, especially if truly anyone could edit. The subject specialist librarian could moderate/shepherd it, to keep it accurate.
As for using a wiki to edit catalog entries, I think that might have to wait until OCLC comes around and makes WorldCat truly open. If all catalogers could edit all bib records, regardless of the encoding level, the bibs would become better. And while the general public should probably not be able to edit the MARC data or the authority-controlled fields, I think it would be great to let users add notes and summaries to records, not just tags and reviews. If a "vandal" were to add false or highly biased information, I'm sure the next cataloger to see it would take care of it. Or perhaps a passionate user might beat the catalogers to it.
One of the things people seem to fear about Wikipedia and other wikis is the threat not only of outright vandalism but of bias and unverified information being added to articles. Having read Wikipedia's content criteria in depth, I can say that such shenanigans are not tolerated on that site. The core Wikipedians are hypervigilant of any such abuses, and any malicious edits tend to be discovered and reversed very quickly. I don't mean "days" quickly, I mean "minutes" quickly. Yes, it is possible that you might see an article before it gets fixed. If you see something that just doesn't seem right, the simple solutions are to a) look at the history pages, and b) check back later to see the next version.
In Wikis in Plain English, when they showed the example of a user starting a page that said, "Pups are cute!" followed by someone changing it to, "Pups are messy!" I burst out laughing and thought, "And now the edit war begins."
Looking at a wiki's history pages can be very enlightening. Edit wars can be educational, if librarians and teachers use them as examples. Oftentimes, you can see both sides of a hotly-debated topic bared in a way you'd never observe from reading static articles.
But the most important thing to remember about wikis is that they are tools. Fabulous and awesome tools, and incredibly useful, but still tools. As Kate Sheehan said, "It’s easy to become enamored of social networking sites and Web 2.0 toys to the point where they seem like a panacea for everything that’s wrong with your library or your job. Slap a wiki on it and call me in the morning." In the end, it's not about the wiki; it's about the people.
Thing #16: Library 2.0
I read all the articles on the list for Thing #16: On Library 2.0 & Web 2.0. (They were short, anyway.) While I particularly enjoyed Away from the "icebergs" and Library 2.0 Debased, the one which really resonated with me most was To a temporary place in time by Dr. Wendy Schultz.
Dr. Schultz leads with, "The ongoing Library 2.0 debate frames library renewal within the current trends transforming our information infrastructure. But those trends themselves will evolve, even mutate, under pressure from emerging change." In other words, we won't suddenly "reach" Library 2.0 and then be done. Library 2.0 isn't even a fixed point on a line leading to the future, but rather a broad band that overlaps with everything that came before and everything that will come after. In fact, we shouldn't even be thinking of 2.0 as the future anymore, but the present. It's time to start moving toward 3.0.
I love her continuum. I love the Library 3.0 vision of people collecting librarians rather than books. Her portrait of Library 4.0 is even more beautiful: ". . . libraries as mind gyms; libraries as idea labs; libraries as art salons. But let’s be clear: Library 4.0 will not replace Libraries 1.0 through 3.0; it will absorb them." The past will not be discarded, but integrated. Her vision of the future is a best-case scenario, and we could easily miss it by lagging behind or charging off in a wrong direction. However, having a vision of the destination in mind will guide our path. And by the time Library 4.0 is becoming the norm, we could be talking about Library 5.0. More likely, we'll have long since thrown away those silly numbers, and we'll be talking about metamorphoses in new terms that may or may not exist yet.
At the end of her article, she comes around to, Library 4.0 as "a retreat, a sanctuary, a pampered experience with information . . . comfortable chairs, quiet, good light, coffee and single malt." This echoes an idea I'm fond of, the library as Third Space--the place you choose to spend your time when you are not at home or at work. Library 2.0 is about being wherever our users are, meeting them in the virtual spaces. And that supports, rather than supplants, the tradition of welcoming our users to join us where we are. Some people come (physically) to the library to use our virtual space and our technology (i.e., to take advantage of our free Wi-Fi and our awesome equipment), and some people come to the library to decompress and have a brief respite from the omnipresent technology that saturates their lives. And both kinds of users--and everyone in between--are welcome. The library should be a social destination.
Dr. Schultz leads with, "The ongoing Library 2.0 debate frames library renewal within the current trends transforming our information infrastructure. But those trends themselves will evolve, even mutate, under pressure from emerging change." In other words, we won't suddenly "reach" Library 2.0 and then be done. Library 2.0 isn't even a fixed point on a line leading to the future, but rather a broad band that overlaps with everything that came before and everything that will come after. In fact, we shouldn't even be thinking of 2.0 as the future anymore, but the present. It's time to start moving toward 3.0.
I love her continuum. I love the Library 3.0 vision of people collecting librarians rather than books. Her portrait of Library 4.0 is even more beautiful: ". . . libraries as mind gyms; libraries as idea labs; libraries as art salons. But let’s be clear: Library 4.0 will not replace Libraries 1.0 through 3.0; it will absorb them." The past will not be discarded, but integrated. Her vision of the future is a best-case scenario, and we could easily miss it by lagging behind or charging off in a wrong direction. However, having a vision of the destination in mind will guide our path. And by the time Library 4.0 is becoming the norm, we could be talking about Library 5.0. More likely, we'll have long since thrown away those silly numbers, and we'll be talking about metamorphoses in new terms that may or may not exist yet.
At the end of her article, she comes around to, Library 4.0 as "a retreat, a sanctuary, a pampered experience with information . . . comfortable chairs, quiet, good light, coffee and single malt." This echoes an idea I'm fond of, the library as Third Space--the place you choose to spend your time when you are not at home or at work. Library 2.0 is about being wherever our users are, meeting them in the virtual spaces. And that supports, rather than supplants, the tradition of welcoming our users to join us where we are. Some people come (physically) to the library to use our virtual space and our technology (i.e., to take advantage of our free Wi-Fi and our awesome equipment), and some people come to the library to decompress and have a brief respite from the omnipresent technology that saturates their lives. And both kinds of users--and everyone in between--are welcome. The library should be a social destination.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Thing #15: SlideShare
And with Thing #15: Presentations go social, it's time for SlideShare. The value of this thing is also quite obvious. I need no convincing.
If nothing else, seeing a lineup of slideshows on this site convinced me of the need to make more interesting title slides. Mine are boring, plain text on a white background. Looked great projected onto an uneven cinderblock wall. Not so great on the web.
I'm sorry that I have no audio track to sync with my slides. If I had known about SlideShare before I did my presentations, I would have probably gone to the effort of borrowing equipment that would have let me record one of my rehearsals, so I could add it.
My user name on SlideShare is akroeger, and I uploaded two presentations from last year. I really love how the notes I attached to each slide display below the presentation. That way, the lack of audio isn't a big deal, as the full text of my presentation is fully accessible without any special action on the viewer's part. I am not so thrilled, however, with the way paragraph breaks are stripped and bullets become garbled in the slide notes, turning a neat, orderly display into a massive, unreadable brick of text. But that's a relatively minor quibble.
I do have one not-so-minor quibble. I revised my slideshows to fix the notes so they'd display better. When I replaced the slideshows, however, SlideShare still displayed and played the old versions with the garbled notes. Even renaming the files before replacing them didn't work. (Yes, I did refresh the page.) I had to entirely delete the original presentations, then upload them anew. They're the way I want them now, but it shouldn't have been that much trouble.
Below is a presentation I did at last year's TSRT Spring Meeting. You'll have to go to SlideShare directly to see the notes.
If nothing else, seeing a lineup of slideshows on this site convinced me of the need to make more interesting title slides. Mine are boring, plain text on a white background. Looked great projected onto an uneven cinderblock wall. Not so great on the web.
I'm sorry that I have no audio track to sync with my slides. If I had known about SlideShare before I did my presentations, I would have probably gone to the effort of borrowing equipment that would have let me record one of my rehearsals, so I could add it.
My user name on SlideShare is akroeger, and I uploaded two presentations from last year. I really love how the notes I attached to each slide display below the presentation. That way, the lack of audio isn't a big deal, as the full text of my presentation is fully accessible without any special action on the viewer's part. I am not so thrilled, however, with the way paragraph breaks are stripped and bullets become garbled in the slide notes, turning a neat, orderly display into a massive, unreadable brick of text. But that's a relatively minor quibble.
I do have one not-so-minor quibble. I revised my slideshows to fix the notes so they'd display better. When I replaced the slideshows, however, SlideShare still displayed and played the old versions with the garbled notes. Even renaming the files before replacing them didn't work. (Yes, I did refresh the page.) I had to entirely delete the original presentations, then upload them anew. They're the way I want them now, but it shouldn't have been that much trouble.
Below is a presentation I did at last year's TSRT Spring Meeting. You'll have to go to SlideShare directly to see the notes.
What Business Are Libraries In?
Stepping away from the 23 Things for a moment, I want to point you to a really interesting post on Designing Better Libraries: "People Don’t Go To Libraries For Information . . . They Go There Because . . ."
After talking a bit about companies that failed because they misunderstood what business they were really in, they come around to libraries. "[L]ibraries think they are in the information business but they are really in the education or learning business."
Food for thought.
After talking a bit about companies that failed because they misunderstood what business they were really in, they come around to libraries. "[L]ibraries think they are in the information business but they are really in the education or learning business."
Food for thought.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Thing #14: Mmm, Delicious
Thing #14: Tagging & social bookmarking in Delicious. Woo! An easy one! I've already been on Delicious for a couple of months, and I love it! I loved it from the get-go, because it's usefulness is so blazingly obvious. I haven't gotten much into the social aspects of it yet, but I really love being able to annotate each bookmark. Further, even though I was always meticulous about keeping my bookmarks well organized into folders and subfolders, tagging them is superior in every way--easier to maintain, easier to search. Also, it's nice to be able to access my bookmarks when I'm away from home.
My Delicious user name is LunaMurphy. Keep in mind that I use Delicious strictly my personal bookmarks, so you won't see a lot of library-related entries. At work, we have a social bookmarking widget integrated into our staff wiki, so if I want to share bookmarks with my coworkers, I do it there. That wiki and those bookmarks are not publicly available, so I can't show you. It would be nice to share those more widely, though.
I love what the Holdridge Area Public Library has done with their tag cloud. That is an awesome way to share bookmarks with patrons. I imagine their subject specialists select which websites to add. It probably requires, if not a formal collection development policy, at least a similar ethos to selecting physical materials for the collection. What a great way to help patrons find the best stuff on the web without casting into the wide sea of Google.
My Delicious user name is LunaMurphy. Keep in mind that I use Delicious strictly my personal bookmarks, so you won't see a lot of library-related entries. At work, we have a social bookmarking widget integrated into our staff wiki, so if I want to share bookmarks with my coworkers, I do it there. That wiki and those bookmarks are not publicly available, so I can't show you. It would be nice to share those more widely, though.
I love what the Holdridge Area Public Library has done with their tag cloud. That is an awesome way to share bookmarks with patrons. I imagine their subject specialists select which websites to add. It probably requires, if not a formal collection development policy, at least a similar ethos to selecting physical materials for the collection. What a great way to help patrons find the best stuff on the web without casting into the wide sea of Google.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
